0 
0 
0 


tf 


^^^*—           f?g 

W 

Justin  Mc  Carthy 


HBaRHnHDaHHIBHi 


&v%ixvtt  JJlxjtk*. 


U   ^  slc  L  ** 


Z$t  Qprime  (ttlinieim  of 
Quttn  QOictotia 


EDITED    BY 

STUART     J.    REID 


S/R    ROBERT   PEEL 


UNIFORM     WITH     THIS     VOLUME. 


THE  QUEEN'S  PRIME  MINISTERS, 

A   SERIES  OF  POLITICAL  BIOGRAPHIES. 
EDITED    BY 

STTJAET     J".     IR-IEIID, 

AUTHOR    OF     '  THE    LIKE    AND    TIMES    OF    SYDNEY    SMITH.' 


The  Volumes  will  contain  Portraits,  and  will  be  published  at 
periodical  intervals. 

THE  EARL  OF  BEACONSFIELD,  K.G.    By  J.  A.  Froude, 
D.C.L. 

VISCOUNT  MELBOURNE.    By  Henry  Dunckley,  LL.D. 

(' Verax.') 

SIR  ROBERT  PEEL.     By  Justin  McCarthy,  M.P. 

VISCOUNT  PALMERSTON.     By  the  Marquis  ok  Lorne, 
K.T. 

THE    RIGHT    HON.    W.    E.   GLADSTONE,    M.P.     By 

G.  W.  E.  Russell. 

EARL  RUSSELL.     By  Stuart  J.  Reid. 

THE  EARL  OF  ABERDEEN.     By  Sir  Arthur  Gordon, 
G.C.M.G.  &c. 

THE  EARL  OF  DERBY.     By  Georgk  Saintsjiury. 

THE   MARQUIS    OF    SALISBURY.     By  H.  D.  Traill, 
D.C.L.  

NEW  YORK 
HARPER  .v  BROTHERS,  Franklin  Square. 


^ tZ7^--z>^ 


usciu  i*4k.  a,*ut,m£,K 


SIR    ROBERT    PEEL 


BY 


JUSTIN    MCCARTHY,    M.P. 


NEW   YORK 
HARPER    &    BROTHERS,    FRAXKLIN    SQUARE 

1891 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER    I 
peel's  family  and  early  career 

l'AGE 

Peek  Fold — The  Peeles  and  Peels — The  first  Sir  Robert  Peel- 
Birth  of  the  great  Robert  Peel — His  Harrow  days — His  school- 
fellows— Lord  Byron — His    training  for   Parliament — He  be- 
comes member  for  Cashel  -  His  early  success  in  debate    .         .        I 


CHAPTER    II 
IN    OFFICE 

The  Perceval  ministry — Peel  Under-Secretary  for  the  Colonies — 
Perceval  killed — Lord  Liverpool  Prime  Minister — Peel  Chief 
Secretary  to  the  Lord  Lieutenant — The  Catholic  question  — 
Peel's  quarrel  with  O'Connell 13 


CHAPTER    III 

'  THE   CHAIN    OF   THE   CATHOLIC  ' 

Peel    resign^   office   and    becomes   known  as  a  great  financier 
Supports  Lord  Liverpool's  repressive  policy     Death  of  George 
III. — Succession  of  George  IV.  —The  Reform  movement — The 
proceedings  against  Queen  Caroline  .         .         .         .26 


VI  SIR   ROBERT    PEEL 

CHAPTER    IV 
PEEL — RUSSELL — CANNING 

PAGE 

Lord  John  Russell's  early  career — Peel  returns  to  office  as  Home 
Secretary — Suicide  of  Lord  Castlereagh — Canning  becomes 
Foreign  Secretary,  and,  on  Lord  Liverpool's  retirement,  Prime 
Minister — Wellington,  Eldon,  and  Peel  resign — Death  of 
Canning — Wellington  administration— Peel  Home  Secretary 
again 35 

CHAPTER   V 

THE   CLARE   ELECTION 

The  Catholic  question  burning — Peel  studies  the  question,  and 
recognises  facts — The  Clare  election,  its  meaning  and  its 
consequences — Lord  Anglesey's  views— Peel  begins  to  see  his 
way      ...........     5° 

CHAPTER   VI 

CATHOLIC   EMANCIPATION    COMING 

Dismissal  of  Anglesey — Crisis  in  the  viceroyalty— The  King's 
obstinacy— Peel  makes  up  his  mind  that  Catholic  Emancipation 
must  come  at  once — He  prevails  upon  Wellington  .         .         .64 

CHAPTER   VII 

CATHOLIC    EMANCIPATION    COME 

The  King  struggles  and  wriggles,  and  yields  at  last— Peel  resigns 
his  seat  for  Oxford  University  ;  stands  again  and  is  defeated 
-He  is  elected    for   West  bury— The  Catholic   Emancipation 
Bill  passes     ..........     7^ 

CHAPTER    VIII 

REFORM 

Peel  labours  at  Reform  of  the  Criminal  Code,  following  to  some- 
length  the  ideas  of  Romilly  and  Mackintosh  ;  brings  in  and 


CONTENTS  Vll 

PAGE 

carries  the  Metropolitan  Police  Act — Death  of  George  IV. — 
The  Revolution  of  July  in  France — William  IV.  believed  to 
be  in  favour  of  Reform — Defeat  of  Wellington  Administration 
on  Sir  Henry  Parnell's  motion  for  inquiry  into  Civil  List  .     88 


CHAPTER    IX 

THE    FIRST    REFORM    BATTLE 

Lord  Grey  has  to  be  sent  for — The  Reform  Administration — The 
first  Reform  Bill  introduced  by  Lord  John  Russell — Peel  opposes 
it     Defeat  of  the  Government,  and  dissolution         .         .         -98 


CHAPTER   X 

THE   BATTLE   OVER 

The  General  Elections  strengthen  the  Reformers — The  new  Bill 
—  Peel  leads  obstruction — The  House  of  Lords  throw  out  the 
Bill— Great  popular  excitement — The  Lords  at  last  have  to 
give  way  and  the  Bill  passes  ......   108 


CHAPTER   XI 

IN   AND   OUT 

The  Irish  Church  Question  -  Lord  Stanley  leaves  the  Whigs — 
Lord  Grey  retires  from  public  life — Lord  Melbourne  Prime 
Minister — The  King  dismisses  Melbourne,  and  Peel  is  called 
back  from  Rome — Again  Prime  Minister,  and  again  defeated  .   115 


CHAPTER   XII 

THE   IRISH    FAMINE 

Lord  Melbourne  Prime  Minister— Death  of  William  IV.  and  ac- 
cession of  Queen  Victoria — The  Jamaica  Act — The  ladies  of 
the  bedchamber— The  Whigs  fall,  and  Peel  comes  in  again 
— The  Corn  Law  question  comes  up— The  Irish  famine  .         .   1 3 1 


vil'i  SIR    ROBERT    PEEL 

CHAPTER    XIII 

TRIUMPH    AND    FALL 

PAGE 

The  Anti-Corn  Law  League-  l'cel  announces  his  change  of  policy 
—He  carries  Free  Trade  at  last,  but  falls  in  his  hour  of 
triumph         ..........    145 

CHAPTER   XIV 

THE   LAST   CHAPTER 

Peel's  vindication  of  his  policy— His  position  in  the  country — His 
seeming  prospects,  and  his  sudden  death         .         .         .         .162 

Index 173 


SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 


CHAPTER   I 

peel's  family  and  early  career 

Peele  Fold— The  Peeks  and  Peels— The  first  Sir  Robert  Peel— Birth 
of  the  great  Robert  Peel — His  Harrow  days — His  schoolfellows — 
Lord  Byron— His  training  for  Parliament — Pie  becomes  member 
for  Cashel — His  early  success  in  debate. 

Sir  Robert  Peel  stands  high  in  the  line  of  succession  to 
Sir  Robert  Walpole  ;  that  line  of  succession  in  which  William 
Pitt  the  younger  stood,  and  in  which  Mr.  Gladstone  now 
stands.  These  men  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  states- 
manship which  comes  in  the  line  of  succession  to  Boling- 
broke.  A  statesman  of  the  Walpole  line  must  be  a  sound 
financier;  he  must  be  always  in  earnest,  and  he  must 
concern  himself  more  readily  and  naturally  with  domestic 
interests  than  with  foreign  affairs.  Some  English  politicians 
of  great  ability  and  great  patriotic  sincerity  have  always 
held  that  the  business  of  English  statesmanship  was,  properly, 
more  in  foreign  affairs  than  in  domestic  work,  seeing  that 
England  has  dominions  scattered  over  all  parts  of  the  world. 
One  of  our  modern  Prime  Ministers — Lord  Beaconsfield — 
argued  gravely  that  England  must  be  regarded  as  an  Oriental 


2  SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 

power.  It  is  not  necessary  to  discuss  any  of  these  questions 
now.  The  fact  has  only  to  be  noted  that  a  statesman  of 
such  opinions,  whether  they  be  right  or  wrong,  could  not 
belong  to  what  may  be  called  the  Walpole  order,  and  that 
to  the  Walpole  order  Sir  Robert  Peel  distinctly  belongs. 

Sir  Robert  Peel  was  born  near  Bury,  in  Lancashire,  on 
February  5,  17SS.  He  came  into  the  world  just  after  the 
triumphant  American  colonists  had  finally  adopted  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  just  before  the  outbreak 
of  the  French  Revolution.  He  came  of  a  family  of  English 
yeomanry  '  the  members  of  which  have  been  described  as 
happy  in  a  golden  mean — too  high  for  the  office  of  constable, 
and  too  low  for  that  of  sheriff.'  These  words  are  quoted 
from  the  interesting  '  Sketch  of  the  Life  and  Character  of 
Sir  Robert  Peel,'  published  in  1S60  by  his  cousin,  Sir 
Lawrence  Peel.  This  book  is  described  by  its  author  as 
written  by  one  '  near  in  blood  to  the  deceased  ;  but  not  too 
near,  as  he  trusts,  for  impartiality.'  It  seems  to  be  written 
in  a  spirit  of  thorough  impartiality,  and  here  and  there  in  a 
temper  of  almost  severe  criticism.  The  family  history  of  the 
elder  generations  of  the  Peels— and,  indeed,  of  all  the  gene- 
rations down  to  Peel's  own  time — appears  exactly  what  one 
might  have  expected  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  forth  just 
such  a  man.  Any  one  familiar  with  the  career  and  the  per- 
sonal character  of  Sir  Robert  Peel,  but  ignorant — if  we  can 
suppose  such  a  person  possible — of  all  the  story  of  his 
ancestors,  might  easily  have  constructed  for  himself  a  de- 
scription of  the  Peels  of  the  past  from  a  study  of  their 
greatest  descendant.  Simplicity,  energy,  patience,  a  con- 
stant struggle  between  humour  and  shyness,  a  tendency  to 
bashful  silence,  with,  at  the  same  time,  great  power  of  speech, 
an  utter  absence  of  all  affectation  or  ostentation — such  were 


peel's  family  and  early  career  3 

the  family  characteristics  which  were  glorified  in  the  career 
and  the  personal  peculiarities  of  Sir  Robert  Peel.     There 
was  thus,  as  his  relative  says,  '  a  mixture  in  his  origin  and 
fortunes  of  two  conditions  of  life — a  Tory  and  a  democrat.' 
The  history  of  the  Peel  family  is  traced  back  to  Craven, 
in  Yorkshire,  in  the  year  1600,  there  or  thereabouts;  but 
not  very  long  afterwards  they  removed  to  the  neighbourhood 
of  Blackburn,  in  Lancashire.     The  family  name  was  spelt 
Peele  during  many  generations.     There  was  a  Robert  Peel, 
a  manufacturer  of  woollen  cloth,  in  Blackburn,  about  1640, 
who  is  said  to  have  been  the  first  really  prosperous  man  of 
the  family.     One  of  his  sons,  Robert — the  name  of  Robert 
is  everywhere  in   the  Peel  family — bought  a  small  estate 
near  Blackburn,  to  which  he  gave  the  name  of  Peele  Fold, 
and  which  still  bears  the  name,  and  is  in  the  possession  of 
the  family.     His  son,  William,  was  the  father  of  another 
Robert  Peele,  who  was  the  grandfather  of  the  great  Prime 
Minister.     This  Robert  Peele  dropped  the  final  letter  of  the 
name  which   the  family  were  then   bearing,   for  the  very 
characteristic  reason  that  it  was  a  waste  of  a  letter,  as  the 
'  e '  affected  in  no  wise  the  sound  of  the  word.     He,  and  a 
brother-in-law,   and  one  or  two  other  partners,  formed  a 
company,  and  set  up  a  calico-printing  factory,  and  esta- 
blished a  warehouse  in  Manchester.     His  sons,  we  read, 
were,  like  himself,  hard-working,  industrious,  plain,  frugal, 
reserved,  and  shy,   '  nourishing,'  says  Sir  Lawrence  Peel, 
'  a  sort  of  defensive  pride.'    The  expression,  defensive  pride, 
is  very  happy.     Sir  Lawrence  Peel,  perhaps,  did  not  re- 
member that  Samuel  Johnson  used  it  once  on  a  memorable 
occasion.     He  and  some  of  his  friends  were  talking  over 
the  story  of  his  quarrel  with  Lord  Chesterfield.  Johnson  de- 
clared that  Chesterfield  was  the  proudest  man  then  existing. 

B2 


4  SIR    ROBERT    PEEL 

Some  one  said,  '  I  think,  from  your  own  account,  you" 
were  the  prouder  man  of  the  two.'  '  But  mine,'  replied 
Johnson,  instantly,  '  was  defensive  pride.'  The  listeners 
thought  this  a  very  happy  description  and  justification  of 
his  feeling.  So  it  was.  The  phrase  is  also  used  very  happily 
in  regard  to  the  Peels.  The  pride  of  Sir  Robert  Peel  was 
altogether  a  defensive  pride.  It  never  had  anything  aggressive 
in  it.  It  was  the  defensive  pride  of  a  shy  and  sensitive  man, 
conscious  of  his  weakness. 

Of  Robert  Peel,  the  economist  of  letters,  another  Robert, 
the  first  baronet  of  the  family,  and  the  father  of  the  Prime 
Minister,  was  the  son.  This  Robert  Peel  followed  the 
ways  of  his  father  and  his  other  relatives  in  sticking  close 
to  his  business,  and  paying  strict  attention  to  all  new 
developments  in  mechanism  and  industrial  art  which  had 
any  bearing  on  its  operation.  He  did  not  invent  any  im- 
provements of  his  own,  but  he  took  early  advantage  of 
every  fresh  and  genuine  discovery  or  application  ;  and  he 
made  a  great  fortune,  and  went  into  Parliament.  He  sat  in 
the  House  of  Commons  for  several  years  as  a  Tory,  and  he 
was  by  no  means  an  undistinguished  member  of  the  House. 
He  made  a  speech,  in  1799,  in  favour  of  the  Union  of  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland,  which  seems  to  have  created  some 
impression.  He  sat  for  the  borough  of  Tamworth  during 
seven  successive  Parliaments,  and  gave  a  constant  support 
to  the  Tory  leaders.  In  1800  he  was  made  a  baronet,  and 
he  remained  in  the  House  of  Commons  until  1820.  Then 
he  fell  back  into  private  life.  He  lived  for  ten  years— lived 
to  see  the  rise  of  his  son's  renown.  In  the  coming  of  that 
renown  he  had  long  believed.  The  stcry  of  Sir  Robert 
Peel,  the  statesman,  is  one  of  those  rarest  of  all  in  real  life 
■ — the   story  of  a  young  man  elected  to  greatness  in  far 


peel's  family  and  early  career  5 

anticipation  by  his  family,  and  afterwards  actually  ratifying 
the  election  by  his  career. 

The  elder  Robert  Peel  determined  that  no  effort  should 
be  spared  to  educate  his  son  up  to  the  level  of  the  career  to 
which  he  believed  him  destined.     Young  Robert  himself 
was  a  studious  boy,  anxious  to  cultivate  his  own  mind  and 
his  own  faculties  to  their  very  utmost;  rather  inclined,  per- 
haps, to  over-cultivation.     He  was  sent  to  Harrow,  where 
he  became  a  schoolfellow  of  Lord  Byron.     Byron  wrote  of 
him  long  after  :  '  Peel,  the  orator  and  statesman— that  was, 
or  is,  or  is  to  be — was  my  form-fellow,  and  we  were  both  at 
the  top  of  our  remove.     We  were  on  good  terms  ;  but  his 
brother  was  my  intimate  friend.     There  were  always  great 
hopes  of  Peel  amongst  us  all,  masters  and  scholars,  and  he 
has  not  disappointed  them.     As  a  scholar,  he  was  greatly 
my  superior ;  as  a  declaimer  and  actor,  I  was  reckoned  at 
least  his  equal ;  as  a  schoolboy,  out  of  school,  I  was  always 
in  scrapes,  and  he  never  ;  and  in  school  he  always  knew  his 
lesson,  and  I  rarely;  but  when  I  knew  it  well,  I  knew  it 
nearly  as  well ;  and  in  general  information,  history,  &c.,  I 
think  I  was  his  superior.'     Byron's  comparison  or  contrast 
of  himself  and  Peel  seems  to  be  candid  and  fair.     It  is  a 
curious  fact,  however,  that  Byron  rates  himself  above  Peel 
as  a  declaimer,  and  that  Peel  turned  out  to  be  one  of  the 
most  perfect  masters  of  the  art  of  Parliamentary  declama- 
tion, while  Byron  failed  as  an  orator  in  the  House  of  Lords, 
mainly  because  it  was  thought    that    his  declamation  was 
stilted,  artificial,  and  of  the  school  of  the  suburban  melo- 
drama.     It  has  to  be  observed   that  Peel    be<ran  with  the 
priceless  possession  of  a  noble  voice,  sweet,  strong,  capable 
of  the  freest  expansion.     Byron  was  Peel's  senior  only  by  a 
few  days.     Byron  left  Harrow  in  1805,  and  the  two  school- 


6  SIR   ROBERT    PEEL 

fellows  went  their  widely  different  ways.  Each  remained, 
however,  at  the  top  of  his  own  remove.  Byron  walked,  as 
Carlyle  says  of  Danton,  'his  own  wild  road,  whither  that 
led  him.'  Peel  moved  steadily,  patiently,  soberly  along  his 
road,  which  certainly  was  not  wild,  and  it  led  him  to  a  lofty 
place. 

Peel  continued  to  be  a  shy  and  studious  youth.  So  shy 
was  he,  that  in  his  walks  he  would  sometimes  make  a  long 
circuit  to  avoid  the  meeting  with  noisy  and  demonstrative 
groups  of  village  boys.  After  he  had  left  Harrow  he  went 
to  Oxford,  and  studied  hard  there,  and  took  his  B.A.  degree 
there  in  1808  ;  and  by  that  time  he  was  nearly  qualified  in 
years  to  enter  the  House  of  Commons.  It  was  easy  for  a 
man  of  influence  and  great  wealth  like  the  elder  Peel,  who 
had  long  been  a  devoted  follower  of  the  Tory  leaders,  to 
find  a  constituency  for  his  son.  A  seat  was  found  for  Peel 
in  the  Irish  city  of  Cashel — the  city,  now  a  decayed  little 
town,  nestling  at  the  foot  of  a  ruin-crowned  rock  which  can 
be  seen  with  deep  interest  and  delight  even  by  a  traveller 
who  has  lately  stood  on  the  Acropolis  at  Athens.  Peel, 
then,  entered  the  House  of  Commons  as  member  for  an 
Irish  constituency.  He  came  into  the  House  of  Commons 
in  1809,  the  year  in  which  Byron  took  his  seat  for  the  first 
time  in  the  House  of  Lords. 

Peel  followed  the  conventional  way  of  the  period,  and 
did  not  address  the  House  of  Commons  during  his  first 
session.  At  that  time,  and  for  long  after,  it  was  thought 
rather  presumptuous  and  unbecoming  for  a  very  young 
member  to  take  any  part  in  debate.  It  was  held  to  be  at 
once  modest  and  cautious  to  make  one's  self  well  acquainted 
with  all  the  ways  of  the  House ;  to  get  to  understand  its 
feelings  as  well  as  its  rules ;  to  become  acclimatised  to  its 


peel's  family  and  early  career  7 

atmosphere  before  attempting  to  address  Mr.  Speaker 
For  one  session  at  least  it  was  recommended  that  young 
members  should  refrain  from  taking  part  in  discussion. 
Some  wise  veterans  of  the  House  of  Commons  even  went 
so  far  as  to  recommend  three  sessions  of  silent  observation. 
A  young  member  was  supposed  to  keep  on  gradually  qualify- 
ing himself  for  a  speech  by  becoming  bolder  and  more 
emphatic  in  his  occasional  cries  of  '  hear,  hear,'  and  '  order, 
order.'  Thus  he  grew  accustomed  to  the  sound  of  his 
own  voice,  and  no  longer  shrank  back  into  his  seat  utterly 
abashed  if,  having  ventured  on  a  rash  '  hear,  hear,'  he  found 
that  his  was  the  sole  sound  of  approval  heard  in  the  House. 
In  our  days  we  have  changed  all  that.  It  is  by  no  means 
an  uncommon  thing  for  a  new  member  to  speak  the  very 
first  day  of  his  Parliamentary  career.  Nobody,  now,  who 
believes  he  can  speak — and  most  men  have  this  belief  about 
themselves — would  think  of  sitting  in  silence  during  a  whole 
session.  The  man  who  remains  silent  for  his  first  session 
now  is,  probably,  a  man  who  hopes  to  be  allowed  to  remain 
silent  for  his  second,  third,  and  fourth  session — for  all  his 
sessions. 

The  reason  for  this  change  in  Parliamentary  ways  is  not 
to  be  found  altogether  in  an  increasing  lack  of  reverence 
for  the  House  of  Commons,  or  an  increasing  amount  of 
self-conceit  in  the  young  members  of  the  present  day. 
The  truth  is,  that  not  many  constituencies  in  our  time  would 
like  their  representative  to  sit  silent  during  the  whole  of  his 
first  session.  The  people  of  Cashel,  when  Peel  represented 
it,  did  not  care  whether  the  member  for  Cashel  ever  opened 
his  mouth  in  the  House.  He  did  not  represent  the  people 
of  Cashel.  He  had  nothing  to  do  with  them,  nor  they  with 
him.     The  local  magnate  elected  him,  or  appointed  him, 


8  SIR   ROBERT   rEEL 

and  that  was  all.     The  public  in  general   took  but  little 
interest  in   the  speeches  that  were  made    in   Parliament ; 
there  were  no  cheap  newspapers  to  bring  the  account  of 
what  had  been  done  in  Westminster  under  the  eyes  of  the 
very  poorest  householder  in  the  land.     The  condition  of 
things  is  now  quite  different.     The  people  are  represented  ; 
the  constituencies  are  really  constituencies.     Every  consti- 
tuent wants  to  know  what  sort  of  a  figure  his  representative 
is  making  in  the  House,  and  how  he  is  acting  with  regard  to 
this  or  that  political  or  social  controversy.     Constituencies 
now,  as  a  rule,  do  not  like  silent  members.     A  man  must 
be  very  popular  in  his  constituency,  or  have  rendered  some 
signal  service  in  public,  to  be  allowed  to  indulge,  without 
remonstrance,  in  a  luxury  of  discreet  silence.     That  sense  of 
quickened  interest  among  the  constituencies  in  what  their 
representatives  are  doing  is  anything  but  an  unhealthy  sign 
of  the  times,  or  a  thing  to  be  deprecated.     It  is  a  very 
healthy  sign.     It  is  a  thing,  on  the  whole,  to  be  glad  of. 
But,  like  other  good  things,  it  is  not  an  unqualified  blessing, 
and  it  brings  with  it  the  disadvantage — for  a  disadvantage, 
on  the  whole,    it   is — that   a   member   of  Parliament   can 
hardly  wait  now  to  study  the  ways  and  master  the  forms 
of  the  House   of  Commons  before  rising  to  address  the 
Speaker. 

Peel  remained  silent,  then,  during  the  whole  of  his  first 
session.  When  Parliament  reassembled,  in  January  1810, 
he  had  the  honour  of  seconding  the  Address  in  reply  to  the 
Speech  from  the  Throne.  Then  he  made  his  maiden  speech. 
'A  little  cold,'  Guizot  declared  the  maiden  speech  to  be. 
In  the  House  of  Commons  it  would  seem,  however,  to  have 
been  regarded  as  a  distinct  success.  The  voice  of  the 
young  orator  nnd  his  whole  mode  of  delivery  were  decidedly 


peel's  family  and  early  career  9 

in  his  favour.  The  House  of  Commons  always  welcomes 
with  fresh  delight  any  one  who  has  a  fine  voice  and  a  clear 
delivery.  A  man  thus  endowed  starts  in  the  House  with  as 
much  in  his  favour  as  a  man  who  starts  in  the  world  with  a 
fortune.  The  man  with  the  voice  may  prove  to  be  voice 
and  nothing  else  ;  the  man  with  a  fortune  may  prove  to 
have  only  the  gift  of  muddling  the  fortune  away.  But  in 
either  case  the  advantage  is  there  to  begin  with.  Peel's  voice 
and  manner  secured  him  attention,  and  even  admiration.  As 
to  the  matter  of  the  speech,  there  was  not,  and  really  could 
not  have  been,  much  in  it.  The  man  who  moves  the  Address 
has  very  little  chance  of  being  able  to  say  anything  new  ; 
the  man  who  seconds  it  has  no  chance  at  all.  One  added 
difficulty  was  put  in  Peel's  way.  It  was  the  wish  and  the 
policy  of  the  Government,  or,  at  least,  of  the  Prime  Minister, 
that  the  Address  itself,  and  the  speeches  delivered  in  pro- 
posing and  seconding  it,  should  convey  as  little  as  possible 
to  the  mind  of  Parliament  and  the  public.  The  Minister 
was  waiting  for  a  policy  ;  waiting  for  a  wind.  So  much  the 
more  credit,  therefore,  is  due  to  Peel's  maiden  speech  in 
the  fact  that,  despite  these  hampering  and  harassing 
conditions,  it  did  seize  and  hold  the  attention  of  the 
House,  and  did  make  members  in  general  believe  that 
they  were  listening  to  something  which  was  worth  the 
hearing. 

Peel  was  tall,  and  at  this  early  period  of  his  career  well 
formed.  He  was  slender,  and  there  was  what  certain  modern 
writers  would  probably  call  a  '  willowy '  gracefulness  about 
him.  He  had  good  features,  a  well-formed  head,  with  a 
large  forehead — at  that  time  regarded  as  an  indispensable 
attribute  of  intellect — and  a  singularly  sweet  smile.  He 
was  then  what  would  be  called  a  dressy  man.     People  still 


10  SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 

used  to  powder  their  hair,  and  the  powder,  it  is  said,  became 
Peel  very  well.     A  little  later  on  O'Connell  scoffed  at  him 
as  '  a  young  man  not  past  the  foppery  of  perfumed  hand- 
kerchiefs and  thin  shoes.'    He  was  of  very  active  habits,  and 
much  given  to  athletic  sports.     He  was  a  good  walker,  was 
fond  of  shooting,  and  was  a  good  shot.    He  had  an  immense 
amount  of  humour  in  him,  to  which  he  allowed  all  too  rare 
an  expression.     He  had  a  keen  sense  of  the  ridiculous  ; 
which,  however,  he  only  permitted  to  expand  when  he  was 
in    the  company  of  his  closest  friends.      He   appears   to 
have  lived  in  a  constant  struggle  between  his  keen  sense  of 
the  ridiculous  and  his  somewhat  overwrought  and  morbid 
notions  as  to  propriety  and  decorum.     Those  who  knew 
him  only  from  the  outside  thought  him  merely  a  cold,  stiff, 
proud  young  man,  pedantically  given  up  to  the  conven- 
tionalities and  the  proprieties.      He  was  not   proud,  but 
only  shy  ;  he  was  not  stiff,  but  only  reserved  and  habitually 
silent.     He  enjoyed  wit  and  humour  far  more  than  most 
men  do,  even  among  those  who  are  in  no  wise  restrained  by 
the  conventionalities  and  the  proprieties. 

He  was  well  versed  in  literature,  classical  and  modern. 
His  classic  reading  did  not  pretend  to  be  scholarship  even 
then,  and  certainly  would  not  be  considered  scholarship 
now  ;  but  he  was  unquestionably  a  very  well-read  man  in  the 
classics,  and  would  be  considered  so  even  in  our  days.  He 
had  a  genuine  relish  for  art  of  every  kind.  He  had  a  singularly 
happy  gift  of  quotation.  Later  on,  he  was  accused  by  Mr. 
Disraeli  of  never  using  a  quotation  the  success  of  which 
with  the  House  of  Commons  was  not  already  guaranteed 
by  its  often  having  been  successful  there  before.  But  Mr. 
Disraeli  did  not  much  care  at  that  time  what  he  said  about 
an  opponent  so  long  as  he  disparaged  him.     No  man  ever 


peel's  family  and  EARLY  CAREER  II 

indulged  less  in  hackneyed  quotations  than  Peel ;  and  he  had 
very  often  a  peculiarly  felicitous  freshness  in  the  manner  in 
which  he  brightened  a  debate  by  some  appropriate  citation. 
He  had  studied  closely  and  worked  hard  for  the  business 
of  debate.  His  father  was  in  the  habit  of  taking  him  to 
the  House  of  Commons  to  hear  the  discussions.  Peel 
had  listened  to  Fox  and  to  Pitt ;  he  had  heard  the  last 
utterances  of  that  splendid  school  of  Parliamentary  orators 
whose  triumphs  are  but  a  tradition  to  us.  It  is  a  proof 
of  that  originality  of  mind  which  his  opponents  were  accus- 
tomed to  deny  to  him,  that  he  did  not  allow  his  eloquence 
to  be  formed  on  the  model  of  a  school  which  was  passing 
away.  The  House  of  Commons  was  becoming  every  year 
more  and  more  an  assembly  of  business-men.  The  elo- 
quence which  in  the  future  would  command  that  House 
must  have  a  good  deal  of  business-precision  and  practicality 
about  it.  The  House  of  Commons  of  later  days — even  of 
Peel's  earliest  days — would,  probably,  not  listen  to  speeches 
in  such  a  style  of  eloquence  as  those  of  the  elder,  or  even 
the  younger,  Pitt.  It  is  a  well-known  and  well-authenticated 
Parliamentary  anecdote,  that  when  Canning  ventured  on 
his  famous  antithesis  about  calling  in  the  New  World  to 
redress  the  balance  of  the  Old,  it  was  a  mere  case  of  touch 
and  go  whether  the  House  would  break  into  applause  or 
burst  into  laughter.  Canning's  courage  was  rewarded ;  the 
House  broke  into  applause,  and  posterity  has  consented 
to  echo  the  plaudits  every  now  and  then.  But  Peel 
understood  the  growing  change  in  the  taste  and  temper 
of  the  House  of  Commons,  and  he  adapted  his  eloquence 
to  the  new  conditions.  It  is  hard  to  say  whether  we  have 
gained  or  lost  by  the  gradual  disuse  of  the  higher  forms  of 
eloquence  in  Parliament.     The  speeches  are  as  long  now  as 


12  SIR   ROBERT    PEEL 

speeches  ever  were,  and  in  the  House  of  Commons  there 
are  not  half  a  dozen  really  eloquent  men. 

The  first  really  eloquent  speech  which  Peel  delivered  in  the 
House  of  Commons  was  a  panegyric  on  Wellington,  whom, 
curiously  enough,  he  had  never  seen  up  to  that  time,  and  did 
not  see  for  a  long  time  after.  The  whole  character  of  Welling- 
ton as  a  soldier  and  a  man  was  calculated  to  impress  a  nature 
like  Peel's  most  profoundly.  P>ut  the  fairness  and  the  logic  of 
Peel's  mind  were  shown  by  the  fact  that,  at  a  time  when  almost 
everyone  in  England  was  furiously  denouncing  Napoleon 
Bonaparte,  and  trying  to  make  him  out  an  incapable  pre- 
tender, and  even  a  coward,  Peel  more  than  once,  in  private, 
broke  into  an  impassioned  panegyric  of  Napoleon's  genius 
as  a  soldier  and  a  statesman.  He  deplored  what  he  justly 
considered  as  the  low  moral  nature  of  the  great  conqueror, 
but  he  could  not  restrain  himself  from  almost  unqualified 
admiration  of  his  genius,  both  in  war  and  government.  It 
may  seem  but  poor  praise  to  a  public  man  to  show  that  he 
could  be  candid  enough  to  admit  genius  in  an  enemy  of  his 
country;  one  must  see  genius,  it  may  be  said,  as  one  must 
see  the  sun,  unless  he  be  blind.  But  those  who  will  read 
anything  of  English  journalism  and  English  gossip  about 
the  time  when  Napoleon's  career  was  drawing  to  its  close,  will 
do  justice  to  Peel's  clearness  and  candour.  It  was  an  article 
of  faith  with  most  Englishmen  then,  that  Napoleon  was  not 
merely  a  monster  of  wickedness,  and  of  deliberate  wicked- 
ness, but  that  he  was  a  military  impostor,  a  ruler  of  the 
order  of  Bombastes  Furioso,  a  liar,  a  glutton,  a  bully,  and  a 
coward. 


13 


CHAPTER   II 

IN    OFFICE 

The  Perceval  ministry— Peel  Under-Secretary  for  the  Colonies- 
Perceval  killed— Lord  Liverpool  Prime  Minister— Peel  Chief  Se- 
cretary to  the  Lord  Lieutenant— The  Catholic  question— Teel's 
quarrel  with  O'Connell. 

When  Peel  entered  Parliament  the  long  struggle  against 
Napoleon  was  still  going  on — had  not,  indeed,  reached  its 
highest  pitch  of  intensity.    The  fortunes  of  England  were  not 
as  yet  showing  very  brightly.    The  year  1S09  was  the  period 
of  Corunna,  of  the  disastrous  Walcheren  Expedition,  and  of 
the  charges  of  maladministration  in  the  Army  brought  against 
the  Duke  of  York.     There  was  much  discontent  in  many 
parts  of  England  ;  there  were  loud  demands  for  Parliamen- 
tary reform,  and  meetings  were  held,  which  here  and  there 
ended   in  riots.     The  Catholic  question  was  making  itself 
heard.     The  short  lucid  interval  enjoyed  by  the  poor  old 
King,   George  III.,   was  soon  about  to  come  to  a   close, 
never  to  return.     The  tendencies  in  political  life  — that  is, 
among  the  men  who  were  qualified  to  lead  political  life — 
were  towards  electoral  reform,  towards  Catholic  Emancipa- 
tion, and  towards  Free  Trade,  this  latter  tendency  showing 
itself  only  in  a  groping  sort  of  way.     The  foremost  statesman 
of  the  day,  Canning,  was  now  in  favour  of  Catholic  Eman- 
cipation, and,  indeed,  had  probably  been  always,  at  heart,  in 


14  SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 

favour  of  it.  He  was  moving  decidedly  in  the  direction  of 
Free  Trade.  He  was  not  in  favour  of  Parliamentary  reform,  or 
of  a  general  removal  of  religious  disability ;  but  his  was  a  mind 
that  could  move  quickly  towards  the  right  end.  The  extreme 
of  Toryism  was  represented  by  Lord  Eldon,  a  man  for  whom 
at  first  Peel  felt  a  very  strong  admiration.  Lord  Liverpool 
was  only  a  shade  less  deeply  dyed  in  old-fashioned  Toryism 
than  Lord  Eldon.  Of  Peel  himself,  Guizot  says  that  he  was 
born  a  Tory. 

So  he  was,  if  we  do  not  take  the  saying  too  literally. 
But  he  was  also  born  an  intellectual  creature,  and  it  was  the 
peculiar  characteristic  of  his  mind  as  he  grew  up  that  he  must 
always  take  account  of  realities.     He  very  soon  began  to  find 
his  sympathies  drawn  more  and  more  away  from  Lord  Eldon 
and  towards  Mr.  Canning.     By  tradition,  by  teaching,  by  the 
conditions  of  his  family,  by  his  bringing-up,  and  by  deep 
religious  feelings,  he  was  made  at  first  a  resolute  opponent 
of  the  demand  for  Catholic  Emancipation.     He  believed  that 
it  would  be  morally  wrong  to  admit  the  Catholics  to  religious 
equality  with  those  who  professed  the  doctrines  of  the  State 
Church  established  by  law.     He  did  not  believe  it  would  be 
possible  to  admit  the  Catholics  of  Ireland  to  religious  equality 
and  still  maintain  the  Irish  Established  Church,  or  even  the 
Act  of  Union  itself.    On  the  State  Church  question  time  has 
proved  that  Peel  was  right.     When  the  Irish  Catholics  were 
allowed  to  vote,  the   Irish  State  Church  was  foredoomed. 
When  the  great  majority  of  the  people  were  enfranchised,  there 
could  be  no  hope  that  the  Church  of  a  very  small  minority 
would  be  allowed  to  remain  endowed  and  established.   Most 
persons  now  would,  very  properly,  say  that  this  fact,  even  if 
generally  anticipated,  ought  to  have  been  only  one  other 
reason  for  emancipating  the  Catholics.    The  State  Church  in 


IN    OFFICE  15 

England,  whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  principle  of  esta- 
blishment, rests  on  a  foundation  totally  unlike  that  of  the  Irish 
State  Church.  The  two  institutions  represented  diametrically 
opposite  principles.  The  English  Church  claimed  to  be  the 
State  Church  because  it  was  the  Church  within  whose  fold 
the  great  majority  of  the  English  people  was  sheltered  ;  the 
Irish  Church  could  only  rest  its  claims  on  the  right  of  con- 
quest. The  vast  majority  of  the  people  whose  Church  it 
professed  to  be  could  not  be  induced  by  any  penal  threats  or 
terrors  to  cross,  even  once,  its  threshold.  It  is  necessary  to  bear 
these  facts  in  mind  in  order  that  we  may  be  able  afterwards 
to  understand  the  meaning  of  Peel's  change  of  action  on  the 
great  question  of  Catholic  Emancipation. 

The  Duke  of  Portland  was  at  the  head  of  the  Govern- 
ment when  Peel  came  into  the  House  of  Commons.  The 
Duke  of  Portland  was  an  amiable  and  upright  man,  of  only 
moderate  ability.  He  had  been  trained  by  long  practice 
into  the  business-work  of  routine  statesmanship,  and  in  the 
House  of  Lords  he  made  as  good  a  figure  for  a  Ministry  as 
another.  He  had  been  for  a  short  time  at  the  head  of  the 
famous  Coalition  Ministry,  of  which  Eox  was  the  soul  and 
the  brain.  He  had  acted  with  the  Whigs  until,  like  Burke,  he 
took  fright  at  the  early  excesses  of  the  French  Revolution. 
Canning  was  Foreign  Secretary;  Perceval  lent  his  mediocre 
intelligence  to  the  business  of  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer; 
Lord  Hawkesbury,  afterwards  Earl  of  Liverpool,  was  Home 
Secretary;  Huskisson,  a  man  of  genuine  capacity  and  promise, 
was  Secretary  to  the  Treasury ;  Lord  Castlereagh,  Secretary 
for  War  and  the  Colonies  ;  and  Eldon  was  Lord  Chancellor. 
Peel's  first  connection  with  office  of  any  kind  was  when  he 
became  private  secretary  to  Lord  Liverpool.  The  leading 
men  in  the  House  of  Commons  at  that  time,  and  for  some 


\G  SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 

time  to  come,  were  Canning  and  Lord  Castlereagh  on  the 
Ministerial  benches;  and  among  the  Whigs,  Sheridan  still 
kept  up  the  associations  of  the  most  brilliant  days  of  the 
party,  and  Brougham  had  just  begun  to  flash  upon  the  House 
the  eccentric  light  of  his  rhetorical  genius.     Tierney  was 
there,  and  Romilly  and  Horner,  and  the  solid,  cool,  clear- 
headed Samuel  Whitbread,  and  the  by  no  means  solid  or 
very  clear-headed  Sir  Francis  Burdett.     At  this  stage  of  his 
career  Burdett  was  one  of  the  most  extreme  of  Radicals. 
He  was  member  for  Westminster,  and  had  for  his  colleague 
another  wild  and  extreme  Radical,  Lord  Cochrane,  afterwards 
Earl  of  Dundonald,  the  daring  and  brilliant  seaman,  one  of 
the  very  last  of  the  brave  race  of  the  sea-kings  of  England. 
Cochrane  was  an  ardent,  a  sincere,  and  a  consistent  Radical. 
About  this  time,  however,  his  energy  was  employed  for  the 
most  part  in  a  different  occupation  from  that  of  politics  :  he 
was  harassing  Napoleon's   admirals  on  the  seas  ;  he  was 
destroying  the  French  men-of-war  in  the  Basque  Roads. 
The  business  of  war,  in  which  Cochrane  took  so  active  a  part, 
interfered  much  with  the  progress  of  domestic  reforms  in 
Parliament,  and  left  to  young  men  like  Robert  Peel  but  little 
chance  of  distinguishing  themselves  much  in  debate. 

The  Duke  of  Portland  resigned  office  in  1809,  and  was 
succeeded  by  Mr.  Spencer  Perceval,  a  man  of  respectable 
character  and  very  meagre  abilities — perhaps  one  of  the 
least  gifted  of  English  Prime  Ministers.  Why  he  ever  should 
have  been  Prime  Minister  is  still  a  wonder  and  a  puzzle, 
even  if  we  make  full  allowance  for  the  unwillingness  of  the 
King  to  see  the  highest  place  in  the  Government  given  to 
Canning.  Canning  himself  had  resigned  office  in  conse- 
quence of  his  duel  with  Lord  Castlereagh,  which  sprang  out 
of  their  quarrels  and  recriminations  over  the  unfortunate 


IN    OFFICE  17 

Walcheren  Expedition  ;  and  he  did  not  come  back  under 
Perceval.  In  the  Perceval  Administration,  Perceval  became 
First  Lord  of  the  Treasury,  and  also  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer.  The  Marquis  of  Wellesley  was,  for  a  time, 
Foreign  Secretary;  Lord  Liverpool  was  Secretary  for  the 
Colonies  and  War ;  Lord  Eldon  remained  Lord  Chancellor. 
Perhaps  the  two  appointments  which  now  interest  us  most 
in  this  Administration  of  Spencer  Perceval's  are  that  of  the 
Secretary  at  War — a  quite  different  office  from  that  of 
Secretary  for  War  and  the  Colonies — and  that  of  the  Under- 
Secretary  of  State  for  the  Colonies.  The  new  Secretary  at 
War  was  Lord  Palmerston  ;  the  new  Under-Secretary  for 
the  Colonies  was  Robert  Peel. 

The  Perceval  Administration  was  suddenly  brought  to  an 
end  by  the  act  of  a  madman — at  least,  of  a  man  who  had 
allowed  a  supposed  grievance  to  brood  upon  his  mind  until 
it  goaded  him  into  insanity.  This  was  a  man  named 
Bellingham,  who  had  been  for  some  time  a  resident  in 
Russia,  and  conceived  himself  to  have  some  claims  against 
the  Russian  Government,  which  he  appealed  to  the  English 
Government  to  take  up.  Nothing  came  of  his  appeal ;  in 
all  probability,  nothing  could  have  come  of  it.  Bellingham 
fed  upon  the  poison  of  his  supposed  grievance  until  his 
perverted  reason  could  be  satisfied  with  no  other  resolve 
than  that  of  killing  the  first  member  of  the  Government 
who  came  within  his  reach.  In  the  lobby  of  the  House  of 
Commons  he  one  day  saw  the  Prime  Minister,  and  although, 
as  he  afterwards  frankly  acknowledged,  he  had  no  particular 
wish  to  kill  Mr.  Perceval,  yet,  as  Mr.  Perceval  happened  to 
be  there,  he  thought  he  was  bound  by  his  vow  to  kill  him. 
He  fired  at  him,  accordingly,  with  a  pistol,  and  Perceval 
fell  dead.    Bellingham  was  found  guilty— indeed,  no  finding 

c 


1 8  SIR    ROBERT   TEEL 

was  needed,  for  he  openly  avowed  the  deed — and  although 
most  people  regarded  him  as  a  mere  madman,  he  was 
executed  in  the  ordinary  course  of  criminal  law.  He  had 
done  something  for  Spencer  Perceval.  Perceval,  who  would 
otherwise  have  hardly  been  remembered  at  all,  or,  if 
remembered,  would  have  been  borne  in  memory  only  as 
the  butt  of  some  of  Sydney  Smith's  jokes,  was  by  the 
bullet  of  the  murderer's  pistol  exalted  to  the  apotheosis  of 
heroism  and  martyrdom. 

On  the  death  of  Perceval,  Lord  Liverpool  became  Prime 
Minister;  Lord  Eldon  continued  to  be  Lord  Chancellor; 
Lord  Palmerston  remained  Secretary  at  War.  Lord  Castle- 
reagh,  who  had  become  Foreign  Secretary  during  the  later 
period  of  the  Perceval  Administration,  continued  to  be 
Foreign  Secretary  still.  Lord  Sidmouth,  the  Addington  of 
whom  it  once  was  epigrammatically  said  that  Pitt  was  to 
him  as  London  is  to  Paddington,  and  whose  descent  from 
the  Speaker's  chair  in  order  to  ascend  to  the  place  of  Prime 
Minister  was  made  the  occasion  for  some  of  Sheridan's 
most  brilliant  and  telling  strokes  of  Parliamentary  sarcasm 
and  wit — Lord  Sidmouth  became  Home  Secretary.  Most 
of  the  other  appointments  do  not  greatly  concern  us.  The 
one  appointment  which  does  concern  us  is  that  of  Chief 
Secretary  to  the  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Ireland.  This  office, 
it  may  be  remarked,  is  very  commonly,  but  very  inaccurately, 
described  as  that  of  the  Secretary  for  Ireland.  There  is,  of 
course,  no  Secretary  for  Ireland.  The  office  is  that  of  Chief 
Secretary  to  the  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Ireland;  and  in  the 
Administration  of  Lord  Liverpool  this  office  was  given,  in 
the  first  instance,  to  Sir  Robert  Peel, 

Never,  probably,  was  a  young  and  gifted  statesman  put 
in  a  position  of  greater  difficulty.     Indeed,  difficulty  is  not 


IN    OFFICE  19 

the  word  to  express  adequately  the  hopeless  nature  of  the 
position  in  which  Peel  was  placed.  The  office  was  an  im- 
possibility, so  far  as  success  was  concerned.  Had  Peel 
been  Carteret,  Chesterfield,  and  Fitzwilliam  all  in  one,  he 
could  not  have  made  much  of  the  office  of  Chief  Secretary 
to  the  Lord  Lieutenant  in  such  a  juncture  of  affairs.  Ireland 
was  torn  by  two  passionate  agitations :  one  inspired  by 
popular  hatred  of  the  Act  of  Union  ;  the  other  by  the 
demand  of  the  Irish  Catholics  for  emancipation  from  the 
degrading  disqualifications  placed  upon  them  by  law.  The 
Act  of  Union  had  hardly  been  passed  when  the  rebellion 
of  Robert  Emmet  broke  out,  as  a  protest  against  the  extinc- 
tion of  the  Irish  Parliament.  The  rebellion  was  easily  put 
down — it  never  had  a  ghost  of  a  chance — and  Robert  Emmet 
was  executed.  But  his  death  had  only  given  new  life  to 
the  popular  feeling,  and  Emmet  was,  and  still  is,  a  young 
hero  and  martyr  in  the  eyes  of  the  vast  majority  of  his 
countrymen.  The  Catholic  movement  had  assumed  tre- 
mendous proportions.  It  was  now  under  the  guidance  and 
inspiration  of  a  man  of  genius,  a  master-spirit.  Daniel 
O'Connell  had  become  the  leader  of  the  Irish  people.  He 
was  a  Catholic  lawyer  of  good  family  ;  he  was  a  most 
brilliant  and  successful  advocate  at  the  Irish  bar  ;  he  was, 
probably,  one  of  the  greatest  popular  orators  the  world  of 
agitation  has  ever  known.  He  was  a  man  of  lofty  stature 
and  of  commanding  presence,  and  he  had  a  voice  which, 
for  strength,  resonance,  flexibility,  and  music,  could  hardly 
ever  have  been  surpassed.  He  had  a  marvellous  combina- 
tion of  daring  and  of  craft.  His  training  as  a  lawyer  enabled 
him  to  know  exactly  what  to  say  in  order  to  arouse  his 
countrymen,  and  what  to  leave  unsaid  in  order  not  to  arouse 
to  any  purpose  the  Irish  law  officers  of  Dublin  Castle.     It 


20  SIR   ROBERT    PEEL 

may  be  said  at  once  of  O'Connell  now— of  a  man  denounced 
in  his  own  day  as  man  was  hardly  ever  denounced,  accused 
of  selfishness,  lying,  cowardice,  and  all  manner  of  basenesses 
— it  may  be  said  of  him  now,  without  fear  of  contradiction 
or  even  cavil,  that  he  was  an  unselfish  man,  a  wise  reformer, 
and  a  sincere  patriot.  The  writer  of  this  volume  once  asked 
Mr.  Gladstone  what  he,  who  well  remembered  O'Connell, 
regarded  as  O'Connell's  chief  characteristic.  Mr  Gladstone 
thought  for  a  moment,  and  then  said  that,  in  his  opinion, 
the  principal  characteristic  of  O'Connell  was  '  a  passion  of 
philanthropy.'  The  expression  was  a  superb  one,  regarded 
merely  as  a  phrase,  and  it  seems  to  have  been  applied  with 
justice.  O'Connell,  during  all  his  career,  was  devotedly  on 
the  side  of  every  measure  that  tended  to  the  benefit  of  the 
poor  and  the  oppressed.  He  was  an  impassioned  advocate 
of  the  abolition  of  slavery ;  he  was  a  Free-trader ;  he  was 
on  the  side  of  religious  equality ;  he  lent  his  influence  to 
the  mitigation  of  prison  discipline  and  of  the  criminal  code. 
The  great  English  philanthropic  reformers  found  that  they 
could  count  on  his  steady,  earnest  support  in  every  one  of 
the  measures  they  had  at  heart,  even  though  they  were  unable 
to  give  any  support  to  the  movement  which  he  had  mainly 
at  heart.  At  this  period,  however,  he  was  at  the  head  of  the 
Catholic  Association,  an  organisruion  formed  to  advocate 
the  claims  of  the  Catholics  to  political  freedom,  and  the 
( 'atholic  question  was  the  question  of  the  day. 

Ever  since  the  Union  the  Catholic  question  had  been  a 
subject  of  trouble  to  Administrations.  The  Act  of  Union 
had,  undoubtedly,  been  made  acceptable  to  many  Catholics 
of  rank  and  influence  by  the  promise  that  it  should  be 
but  a  first  step  to  Catholic  Emancipation.  Pitt  did,  in  fact, 
bring  in  a  Bill  for  the  relief  of  the  Catholics  in  1801,  but 


IN    OFFICE  2  1 

the  King  would  not  hear  of  it.  Pitt  and  his  friends  resigned 
office.  Many  people  were  strongly  of  opinion  then,  and 
since,  that  Pitt  had  determined  to  go  out  of  office  for  a  while 
on  whatever  pretext.  The  English  public  were  beginning 
to  be  sick  of  the  long  war  against  the  French,  which  was 
costing  so  much  money  and  so  much  blood,  and  in  which 
many  English  taxpayers,  oppressed  by  burdens  of  taxation, 
were  beginning  to  find  that   they  had  very  little  interest. 

Pitt,  it  was  said,  foresaw  clearly  enough  that  a  peace  of 
some  sort  would  undoubtedly  be  patched  up,  and  saw,  too, 
that  such  a  peace  would  not  last.  On  both  grounds,  there- 
fore— because  he  did  not  approve  of  a  peace  just  then,  and 
because  he  was  convinced  that  a  peace  made  then  would 
not  last — he  was  determined  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
transaction.  He  looked  about — this  is  the  contention — for 
some  plausible  excuse  to  resign  office,  knowing  he  could 
return  to  it  whenever  he  pleased.  He  remembered  his 
pledges  to  the  Irish  Catholics,  and,  knowing  perfectly  well 
that  the  King  would  never  consent  to  Catholic  Emancipa- 
tion, he  went  through  the  form  of  attempting  to  fulfil  his 
promises.  The  King  was  obstinate,  and  Pitt  resigned.  The 
Treaty  of  Amiens  was  made,  and  proved  a  hopeless  failure. 
The  voice  of  the  country  summoned  Pitt  back  to  power. 
He  came  back,  and  promised  the  King  never  to  disturb  the 
royal  conscience  or  the  royal  temper  again  by  any  allusion 
to  the  claims  of  the  Roman  Catholics. 

Whether  this  explanation  of  Pitt's  conduct  be  true  or 
not,  it  is  certain  that  he  returned  to  office  under  a  pledge 
not  to  distress  the  King  any  more  about  Catholic  Emancipa- 
tion. In  that  condition  the  whole  subject  of  controversy 
remained  down  to  the  time  when  Robert  Peel  went  over  to 
J  >ublin  Castle.     The  understanding  was  that  nothing  was 


22  SIR    ROBERT    PEEL 

to  be  don  j  or  attempted  in  the  direction  of  Catholic  Eman- 
cipation. This  principle  suited  Peel  in  every  way.  He 
was  at  that  time,  and  had  always  been,  a  sincere  and  un- 
compromising opponent  of  the  admission  of  the  Catholics 
to  political  equality.  That  feeling  had  with  him  all  the 
depth  and  strength  of  a  religious  principle.  There  was 
something  almost  Puritanical  in  the  sternness  of  his  devo- 
tion to  what  he  believed  to  be  one  of  the  cardinal  principles 
of  Protestantism.  The  fact  cannot  be  too  strongly  affirmed, 
because  we  shall  never  appreciate  all  that  was  most  mag- 
nanimous and  statesmanlike  in  Peel's  character  if  we  allow 
ourselves  to  fall  into  the  belief  of  nearly  all  his  enemies,  and 
some  of  his  friends,  that  he  took  up  lightly  certain  principles 
merely  because  he  was,  if  we  may  so  describe  it,  born  into 
them,  and  that,  with  the  growth  of  time  and  thought  and 
experience,  he  naturally  grew  out  of  them — they  fell  from 
him,  and  he  was  free.  To  appreciate  the  sacrifice  that  Peel 
made  to  his  convictions  of  the  present,  we  must  appreciate 
the  strength  and  fervour  of  his  convictions  of  the  past. 
Peel  opposed  Grattan's  measure  of  Catholic  relief  in  1810 
— Grattan  had  come  back  to  public  life  to  be  the  champion  of 
the  Roman  Catholics,  staunch  Protestant  though  he  was — 
and  Sir  Henry  Parnell's  motion  on  the  same  subject,  two 
years  after.  Not  merely  did  he  oppose  these  measures,  but 
he  made  by  far  the  ablest  of  the  speeches  delivered  against 
them.  The  extreme  Tories  all  over  the  country  were  posi- 
tively delighted  with  him,  and  hailed  him  as  the  rising  star 
of  the  Church  party  in  Parliament.  Canning  had  already 
declared  himself  openly  in  favour  of  the  Catholic  claims, 
and  had  even  made  a  motion  for  an  inquiry  into  the  nature 
of  the  laws  affecting  them.  It  was  beginning  to  be  found 
mpossible  to  get  together  any  strong  Administration  without 


IN    OFFICE  23 

admitting  to  it  some  men  who,  like  Canning,  were  openly 
in  favour  of  Catholic  Emancipation.  Therefore,  in  the 
Government  of  Lord  Liverpool  it  was  understood  that  the 
question  was  to  be  left  open.  The  Ministry  would  take  no 
step  in  favour  of  Catholic  relief;  but  it  was  not  to  be  a 
reason  for  excluding  a  man  from  the  Cabinet  that  he  was 
personally  in  favour  of  Emancipation.  This  fact,  too,  made 
Peel's  star  shine  all  the  brighter  in  the  eyes  of  the  uncom- 
promising Tories.  He  was  looked  upon  as  the  head  of  the 
party  who  would,  sooner  or  later,  have  to  do  battle  against 
Canning. 

But,  of  course,  these  facts,  well  known  in  Ireland,  were 
not  likely  to  secure  for  Peel  a  favourable  reception  there. 
He  was  instantly  nicknamed  '  Orange  Peel '  by  the  followers 
of  O'Connell.  Nor  did  he  receive  very  much  more  favour 
from  the  extreme  opponents  of  O'Connell.  Notwithstanding 
he  nickname  of  Orange  Peel,  the  new  Chief  Secretary  was 
not  in  any  sense  an  Orangeman.  The  Orangemen  were, 
for  their  numbers,  nearly  as  great  a  trouble  to  each  suc- 
ceeding Government  as  the  Catholics.  The  Irish  Orange- 
men—or, perhaps,  it  would  be  better  to  say  the  Orangemen 
in  Ireland — out-Eldoned  Eldon  himself  in  the  bitterness  of 
their  hatred  to  everything  Catholic  and  everything  pro- 
gressive. To  give  satisfaction  to  some  of  these  men,  Peel 
should  have  done  nothing  short  of  dispersing  the  Catholic 
meeting  by  some  prompt  whiffs  of  grape-shot,  and  ordering 
the  immediate  execution  of  O'Connell.  Peel  saw  his  way 
clearly.  He  would  not  depart  from  that  way  to  win  the 
cheers  of  the  Orangemen,  any  more  than  he  would  to  win 
the  cheers  of  the  Catholics.  His  desire  and  his  determina- 
tion were  to  hold  a  perfectly  impartial  course  ;  to  touch 
nothing  which  had  to  do  with  Catholic  relief,  or  which  could 


24  SIR    ROBERT   PEEL 

give  the  least  hope  of  any  measure  in  that  direction,  but 
in   all  other  ways   to  promote   administrative   reform  and 
the  development  of  education.      He  re-organised,  or,  rather, 
indeed,  created  the  Irish  police  force.     He  made  earnest 
efforts  for  the  increase  of  public  schools.    He  worked  hard, 
and  did  so  in  many  directions.    His  Lancashire  bringing-up, 
and  his  business  habits,  stood  him   in  good  stead.       His 
colleagues  and  subordinates  in  Dublin  Castle  were  amazed, 
amused  ;  some,  even,  were  not  a  little  scandalised  at  the 
manner  in  which  the  new  Secretary  toiled  away  through 
hours  and  hours.     It  was  not  in  keeping  with  the  traditions 
of  the  office,  some  men  thought,  to  give  up  all  that  time  to 
dull,  dry  duty.     What  about  the  lounges  into  the  club,  the 
gallops  in  the  Phoenix  Park,  the  long  rides  by  the  side  of 
some  open  carriage  with  a  coronet  on  its  panel,  and  a  pretty 
woman  on  its  cushions?     What  about  the  games  of  whist, 
and  all  the  other  amusements  which  brighten  and  shorten 
the  day  of  the  oppressed  official  ?      Peel  was  setting  a  bad 
example,  Dublin  Castle  thought. 

Peel  worked  away  after  his  own  fashion,  and  did  not 
take  the  slightest  notice  of  ordinary  gossip  about  him ; 
perhaps  never  heard  of  it.  What  happened  to  him  in 
Dublin  was  what  happened  to  him  in  London,  and  wherever 
he  went.  Those  who  knew  him  well,  were  charmed  with 
him  ;  those  who  did  not  know  him  well,  misunderstood  him, 
and  therefore  were  disposed  to  dislike  him.  He  was,  indeed, 
a  man  who  must  be  known  intimately,  or  cannot  be  known 
at  all. 

Peel  and  O'Connell  came  to  an  open  quarrel.  Hard 
words  had  been  interchanged,  and  a  challenge  was  sent  and 
accepted.  But  there  was  some  delay  in  settling  the  con- 
ditions of  the  meeting,  and  the  authorities  got  wind  of  the 


IN    OFFICE  25 

affair,  and  intervened  ;  and,  in  the  expressive  words  of  Mr. 
Foker's  groom,  in  '  Pendennis,'  '  Fight  didn't  come  off.'  In 
those  days  still  lingered  the  tradition  that  it  was  the  business 
and  the  duty  of  a  public  man  to  sustain  his  words  with  his 
pistol.  It  is  a  somewhat  curious  fact  that  the  last  serious 
talk  of  a  duel  between  two  members  of  Parliament,  the 
last  project  of  a  duel  with  which  the  House  of  Commons 
interfered,  was  one  between  another  Sir  Robert  Peel,  son  of 
the  subject  of  this  memoir,  and  a  then  popular  Irish  politician, 
The  O'Donoghue.  But  that  which  was  a  mere  absurdity 
or  scandal  in  the  days  of  the  present  Sir  Robert  Peel,  was 
the  right  sort  of  thing  in  the  early  days  of  his  father.  We 
have  seen  that  just  before  this  Canning  went  out  with 
Lord  Castlereagh.  Long  after  this  Disraeli  challenged 
O'Connell. 


26  SIR    ROBERT    PEEL 


CHAPTER    III 

'the  chain  of  the  catholic' 

Teel  resigns  office  and  becomes  known  as  a  great  financier — Supports 
Lord  Liverpool's  repressive  policy — Death  of  George  III. — Suc- 
cession of  George  IV. — The  Reform  movement — The  proceedings 
against  Queen  Caroline. 

Peel  held  on  to  his  uncongenial  duties  for  about  six  years. 
They  must  have  been  to  him  thoroughly  irksome,  except, 
of  course,  those  by  which  he  was  enabled  to  re-organise 
defective  systems  of  administration.  In  1818  he  resigned 
the  office  of  Chief  Secretary  to  the  Lord  Lieutenant.  In 
the  meantime  many  things  had  happened.  The  long  war 
with  France  was  over  and  done.  Napoleon  had  gone  down, 
never  to  rise  again.  The  Congress  of  Vienna,  and  the 
'crowned  conspirators  of  Verona,' had  settled  the  map  of 
Europe  to  their  satisfaction  for  a  time.  The  eyes  of  the 
English  public  were  withdrawn  from  the  battle-fields  of 
armies  on  the  Continent  to  the  battle-fields  of  parties  and 
of  factions  here  at  home.  The  defects  and  errors  of  the 
Liverpool  and  Castlereagh  Administration  were  becoming 
more  and  more  evident.  Perhaps  already,  during  his  ex- 
perience of  Ireland,  Peel  had  begun  to  have  a  glimmering 
consciousness  that  peace  and  order  are  not  to  be  secured 
by  mere  measures  of  repression.  At  least,  we  can  see  that 
some  such  assumption  is  warranted  by  Peel's  subsequent 


'THE    CHAIN    OF    THE   CATHOLIC'  2J 

course  of  action  with  regard  to  the  Roman  Catholic  claims. 
So  far  as  English  policy  was  concerned,  he  remained  the 
same  inflexible  Tory  that  he  had  been  before.  But  he  was, 
for  some  reason,  anxious  to  get  free  of  the  Liverpool  Admini- 
stration just  then.  He  resigned  his  Irish  office,  and  did 
not  accept  any  other.  So  entirely  was  he  regarded  still  as 
the  leader  of  the  Tory  party  in  the  House  of  Commons 
that,  when  the  retirement  of  Mr.  Abbott  from  the  Speaker's 
chair,  and  his  elevation  to  the  peerage,  left  a  vacancy  in  the 
representation  of  the  University  of  Oxford,  Peel  was  invited 
to  stand  as  a  candidate.  It  is  certain  that  Canning  himself 
had  a  strong  ambition  to  represent  the  University ;  but  the 
whole  influence  of  Lord  Eldon  was  given  to  Peel,  and  Peel 
was  elected.  Canning  took  the  preference  given  to  his 
friend  and  rival  with  dignity  and  sweetness,  and  congratu- 
lated Peel  on  his  election.  Canning,  it  should  be  stated, 
had  joined  the  Ministry  of  Lord  Liverpool  in  the  meantime. 
In  1816  he  had  consented  to  accept  the  office  of  President 
of  the  Board  of  Control. 

A  stormy  time  was  now  coming  on  for  the  Government. 
There  was  widespread  distress.  There  were  riots  in  the 
counties  of  England  arising  out  of  the  distress.  There  were 
riots  in  various  parts  of  London.  Secret  Committees  were 
appointed  by  both  Houses  of  the  Legislature  to  inquire  into 
the  alleged  disaffection  of  part  of  the  people.  The  Habeas 
Corpus  Act  was  suspended.  The  march  of  the  Blanketeers 
from  Manchester  caused  panic  and  consternation  through 
various  circles  in  London.  The  march  of  the  Blanketeers 
was  a  very  simple  and  harmless  project.  A  large  number 
of  the  working-men  in  Manchester  conceived  the  idea  of 
walking  to  London  to  lay  an  account  of  their  distress  before 
the  heads  of  the  Government,  and  to  ask  that  some  remedy 


2S  SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 

might  be  found,  and  also  to  appeal  for  the  granting  of 
Parliamentary  reform.  It  was  part  of  their  arrangement 
that  each  man  should  carry  a  blanket  with  him,  as  they 
would,  necessarily,  have  to  sleep  at  many  places  along  the 
way,  and  they  were  not  exactly  in  funds  to  pay  for  first-class 
hotel  accommodation.  The  nickname  of  Blanketeers  was 
given  to  them  because  of  their  portable  sleeping-arrange- 
ments. The  whole  project  was  simple,  was  touching  in  its 
simplicity.  Even  at  this  distance  of  time  one  cannot  read 
about  it  without  being  moved  by  its  pathetic  childishness. 
These  poor  men  thought  they  had  nothing  to  do  but  to 
walk  to  London,  and  get  to  speech  of  Lord  Liverpool,  and 
justice  would  be  done  to  them  and  their  claims.  The 
Government  of  Lord  Liverpool  dealt  very  roundly,  and  in 
a  very  different  way,  with  the  Blanketeers.  If  the  poor  men 
had  been  marching  on  London  with  pikes,  muskets,  and 
swords,  they  could  not  have  created  a  greater  fury  of  panic 
and  of  passion  in  official  circles.  The  Government,  availing 
itself  of  the  suspension  of  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act,  had  the 
leaders  of  the  movement  captured  and  sent  to  prison, 
stopped  the  march  by  military  force,  and  dispersed  those 
who  were  taking  part  in  it.  The  poor  Blanketeers  were 
more  lucky,  however,  than  the  men  who  went  to  Versailles 
to  represent  their  poverty  and  their  claims  to  the  King,  and 
whose  leaders  were  promptly  taken  and  hanged  for  their 
impertinence.  The  'Massacre  of  Peterloo,'  as  it  is  not 
inappropriately  called,  took  place  not  long  after.  A  great 
public  meeting  was  held  at  St.  Peter's  Field,  then  on  the 
outskirts  of  Manchester,  now  the  site  of  the  Free  Trade 
Hall,  which  many  years  later  rang  so  often  to  the 
thrilling  tones  of  John  Bright.  The  meeting  was  called  to 
petition  for  Parliamentary  reform.     It  should  be  remem- 


'  THE   CHAIN    OF   THE    CATHOLIC  '  29 

bered  that  in  those  days  Manchester,  Birmingham,  and 
other  great  cities  were  without  any  manner  of  representation 
in  Parliament.  It  was  a  vast  meeting — some  eighty  thou- 
sand men  and  women  are  stated  to  have  been  present. 
The  yeomanry,  for  some  reason  impossible  to  understand, 
endeavoured  to  disperse  the  meeting,  and  actually  dashed 
in  upon  the  crowd,  spurring  their  horses  and  flourishing 
their  sabres.  Eleven  persons  were  killed,  and  several 
hundreds  were  wounded.  The  Government  brought  in,  as 
their  panacea  for  popular  trouble  and  discontent,  the  famous 
Six  Acts.  These  Acts  were  simply  measures  to  render  it 
more  easy  for  the  authorities  to  put  down  or  disperse 
meetings  which  they  considered  objectionable,  and  to  sup- 
press any  manner  of  publication  which  they  chose  to  call 
seditious.  But  among  them  were  some  Bills  to  prevent 
training  and  drilling,  and  the  collection  and  use  of  arms. 
These  measures  show  what  the  panic  of  the  Government 
was.  It  was  the  conviction  of  the  ruling  classes  that  the 
poor  and  the  working-classes  of  England  were  preparing  a 
revolution.  Some  inner  promptings  of  conscience  may  have 
suggested  this  fear.  Men  in  authority  may  have  observed 
that  in  other  countries  revolution  had  been  attempted  with 
no  greater  provocation  to  stimulate  it.  Indeed,  it  now 
appears  all  but  certain  that  a  long-protracted  administration 
of  the  policy  of  Liverpool  and  Castlereagh.  and  a  denial 
of  the  claim  to  Parliamentary  reform,  must  have  plunged 
England  into  the  throes  of  a  revolution.  During  all  this 
time,  the  few  genuine  Radicals  in  the  House  of  Commons 
were  bringing  on  motion  after  motion  for  Parliamentary 
reform,  just  as  Grattan  and  his  friends  were  bringing  forward 
motion  after  motion  for  Catholic  Emancipation.  In  181 8,  a 
motion  by  Sir  Francis  Burdctt  for  annual  Parliaments   and 


30  SIR    ROBERT    PEEL 

universal  suffrage  was  lost  by  a  majority  of  106  to  nobody. 
How,  it  may  be  asked,  could  this  possibly  come  about  ?  Why 
did  not  even  the  member  who  brought  forward  the  motion 
condescend  to  vote  for  it,  or,  if  he  did  not  mean  to  vote  for 
it,  why  did  he  challenge  a  division  ?  It  happened  in  this 
way,  as  persons  familiar  with  the  usages  of  the  House  of 
Commons  will  guess.  The  motion  had  only  two  supporters 
— Burdett  himself,  and  his  colleague,  Lord  Cochrane,  who, 
after  an  unjust  imprisonment  and  an  unmerited  degradation, 
had  come  back  to  the  House  of  Commons.  The  forms  of 
the  House  require  two  tellers  on  either  side,  and  a  com- 
pliance with  this  inevitable  rule  took  up  the  whole  strength 
of  Burdett's  party.  In  such  a  case  now  we  should  say  that 
into  the  'Aye'  lobby— that  in  favour  of  Burdett's  motion — 
nobody  walked;  for  the  very  good  reason  that  there  was 
nobody  to  walk. 

Peel  was  out  of  office  all  this  time.  But  he  gave  a  strong 
support  to  the  measures  of  the  Government.  He  supported 
the  Six  Acts,  and  he  approved  of  the  conduct  of  Ministers 
with  regard  to  the  events  of  Peterloo.  So  far  his  antique 
Toryism  had  moulted  no  feather.  He  did  not,  however, 
give  up  the  best  of  his  abilities  to  the  support  of  mea- 
sures like  the  Six  Acts.  He  began  to  be  known  as  a  great 
authority  on  finance  and  a  far-seeing  financial  reformer. 
He  delivered  about  this  time  some  of  the  most  impressive 
and  some  of  the  most  important  speeches  of  his  public 
career.  He  was  in  strong  sympathy  with  the  views  of 
the  economical  party,  whose  opinions  were  treated  with  a 
lofty  scorn  by  most  of  the  official  statesmen  of  the  day. 
Francis  Horner  had  been  at  the  head  of  the  Economist 
party  until  his  premature  death,  and  Peel  cordially  recog- 
nised his  talents  and  admired  his  principles.     The  entrance 


'THE   CHAIN    OF.   THE   CATHOLIC'  3 1 

of  David  Ricardo  into  the  House  of  Commons  gave  further 
strength  to  the  Economists.  A  signal  tribute  to  the  financial 
capacity  of  Robert  Peel  was  given  in  1819.  A  Committee 
of  the  House  was  appointed  to  consider  the  question  of  a 
resumption  of  cash  payments,  and  some  kindred  questions 
arising  out  of  the  financial  and  commercial  troubles  and 
convulsions  which  attend  on  the  passing  from  a  state  of  war 
into  a  state  of  peace,  the  fictitious  and  unnatural  semblance 
of  prosperous  trade  which  the  state  of  war  brings  up, 
collapsing  the  moment  it  comes  in  contrast  with  the  cold, 
clear  dawn  of  peace.  The  exhilaration  of  the  night  of 
revel  is  succeeded  by  the  chill  morning,  and  the  painful 
necessity  of  encountering  the  prosaic,  inevitable  details  of 
the  day's  duty.  Peel  was  appointed  chairman  ot  this 
Committee — and  what  a  Committee  it  was  !  It  almost  takes 
one's  breath  away  to  read  that  list  of  names  :  Canning, 
Castlereagh,  Sir  James  Mackintosh,  Huskisson,  Vansittart, 
Tierney  ;  and  over  these  Robert  Peel,  then  only  thirty-one 
years  of  age,  took  the  presiding  place.  It  fell  to  his  duty 
in  May,  1819,  to  move  resolutions  recommending  a  return 
to  cash  payments.  He  declared  himself  the  advocate  and 
the  champion  of  '  the  old,  the  vulgar  doctrine,  as  some 
people  have  called  it,  that  the  true  standard  of  value 
consisted  in  a  definite  quantity  of  gold  bullion.'  He 
insisted  on  it  that  'a  certain  weight  of  gold  bullion  with  an 
impression  on  it  denoting  it  to  be  of  that  certain  weight,  and 
of  a  certain  fineness,  constituted  the  only  true,  intelligible, 
and  adequate  standard  of  value.'  The  House  of  Commons 
acted  on  Peel's  recommendations  ;  but  it  is  curious  to  note 
that  Sir  Robert  Peel,  the  father  and  political  tutor  of  the 
great  rising  statesman,  took  a  different  view.  Peel's  pro- 
posals were  embodied  in  an  Act  of  Parliament. 


32  SIR    ROBERT    PEEL 

On   January  29,   1820,  the  long   reign    of  George    III. 
came  to  an  end.    The  life  of  the  King  closed  in  darkness  of 
eyes   and  mind.     Stone-blind,   stone-deaf,  and,  except  for 
rare  lucid  intervals,  wholly  out  of  his  senses,  the  poor  old 
King  wandered  from  room  to  room  of  his  palace,  a  touching 
picture,  with  his  long,  white,  flowing  beard,  now  repeating  to 
himself  the  awful  words  of  Milton — the  '  dark,  dark,  dark, 
amid  the  blaze  of  noon — irrecoverably  dark'  —  now,  in  a 
happier  mood,  announcing  himself  to  be  in  the  companion- 
ship of  angels.     George,  the  Prince  Regent,  succeeded,  of 
course,  to  the  throne  ;  and  George  IV.  at  once  announced 
his   willingness   to   retain    the  services  of  the  Ministry  of 
Lord   Liverpool.      The   Whigs  had  at  one  time  expected 
much  from  the  coming  of  George  IV.  to  the  throne,  but 
their   hopes  had  begun  to  be  chilled  of  late.     The  Irish 
Catholics  still,  and  for  yet  a  little  time  longer,  looked  to  him 
with   confidence    for   a   redress   of  their   great   grievance. 
George  IV.  paid  a  visit  to  Ireland  shortly  after  his  accession  to 
the  throne,  and  was  received  with  almost  frantic  delight  by 
O'Connell  and  other  leaders  of  the   Irish  Catholics,  and, 
indeed,  by  the  population  generally.    There  was  a  wild  hope 
that   George   was   returning   to   his   long-forsaken    Liberal 
principles,  and  that  he  would  favour  the  scheme  of  Catholic 
Emancipation.     George  himself  indirectly  and   tacitly  en- 
couraged the  idea,  although  by  a  sort  of  common  under- 
standing  no  allusion   whatever  was  made  to  the  subject. 
The  King  returned  to  London  very  soon,  and  it  was  dis- 
covered before  long  that  nothing  was  to  come  of  his  Irish 
visit,  except  the  erection  of  a  singularly  ugly  obelisk,  and 
the  changing  of  the  name  of  Dunleary  to  that  of  Kingstown. 

Peel  took  little  part  in  the  debates  concerning  the  Bill  of 
pains  and  penalties  against  the  unfortunate  Queen  Caroline 


'THE   CHAIN    OF   THE   CATHOLIC'  33 

which  was  brought  in  by  the  Government  of  Lord  Liverpool. 
We  need  not  go  into  the  long  story  of  the  charges  made 
against    the    wife    of   George    IV.,    the    proceedings    that 
were  taken   in  consequence,  and  the  wild  agitation  which 
was   aroused  all  over  the  country.     Canning  advised  and 
defended  the  Queen  ;  Brougham  threw  his  whole  soul  and 
his  whole  passion  into  her  cause.     The  feeling  against  the 
Bill  ran  so  high  that  it  had  to  be  dropped,  and  the  public 
rejoicings  over  its  abandonment  amounted  to  actual  exulta- 
tion.    Peel  opposed  a  vote  of  censure  on  the  Ministry  for 
their  action  with  regard  to  the  Queen,  although  he  carefully 
guarded   himself  against  expressing  approval  of  everything 
they  had  done.     It  was  a  troublous  time.     The  King  was 
very  unpopular.     He  was  shot  at  one  night  when  driving  to 
one   of  the   theatres  ;   two  bullets  broke  the  glass  in  the 
carriage  windows.     The  famous  Cato  Street  Conspiracy  to 
assassinate  the  leading  members  of  the  Government  was 
discovered,  and  the   chiefs   of  the  conspiracy  were  tried, 
convicted,  and  promptly  hanged.      In   the  meantime,  the 
efforts  of  the  few  reformers  in  Parliament  were  as  zealous 
and  resolute  as  if  these  men  were  incapable  of  being  made  to 
believe  that  their  cause  was  hopeless.    Everybody  in  society 
everywhere  said  that  their  agitation  was  mere  midsummer 
madness  ;  but  they  held  on  in  the  confidence  of  the  justness 
of  their  cause.      Plunket,  an  Irishman  almost  as  eloquent 
as  ('.rattan  himself,  had  succeeded,  on  Grattan's  death  in 
1820,  to  his  place  as  Parliamentary  leader  of  the  advocates 
of  Catholic  Emancipation.     To  that  cause  Canning  had  in 
the  House  of  Commons  given  his  open  adhesion.    Sir  James 
Mackintosh   was  fighting  hard  to   obtain   some   mitigation 
di'  the  terrible  penal  code  which  made  almost  every  offence 
punishable  by  death.     The  Catholic  cause  was  distinctly 


34  SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 

advancing  ;  it  was  gradually  winning  over  the  House  of 
Commons,  although  even  still  Robert  Peel  declared  himself 
against  its  principle  just  as  strongly  as  ever.  But  the  cause 
of  Parliamentary  reform  seemed  to  make  no  advance.  It 
had  now,  however,  a  new  and  zealous  champion,  in 'the 
person  of  Lord  John  Russell.  Lord  John  Russell  came 
quietly  into  the  movement.  He  was  destined  to  be  of 
infinitely  greater  service  to  it  than  Burdett  or  Cochrane  or 
even  than  Brougham  himself. 


35 


CHAPTER   IV 

PEEL — RUSSELL — CANNING 

Lord  John  Russell's  early  career — Peel  returns  to  office  as  Home 
Secretary — Suicide  of  Lord  Castlereagh — Canning  becomes  Foreign 
Secretary,  and,  on  Lord  Liverpool's  retirement,  Prime  Minister — 
Wellington,  Eldon,  and  Peel  resign — Death  of  Canning — Welling- 
ton administration— Peel  Home  Secretary  again. 

Lord  John  Russell  and  Robert  Peel  were  to  be  rivals 
and  antagonists  during  a  long  series  of  years.  In  character, 
in  conditions  of  life,  as  well  as  in  political  views,  they  were 
curiously  contrasted.  Russell  was  the  scion  of  one  of  the 
greatest  families  in  England  ;  great  in  its  far-reaching  pedi- 
gree, and  greater  still  in  the  illustrious  character  of  many  of 
its  members.  Russell  had  had  but  an  imperfect  education, 
in  the  scholastic  or  schoolmaster's  sense  of  the  word.  In 
classic  attainments,  and,  indeed,  in  general  literary  culture, 
he  could  not  be  compared  for  a  moment  with  Peel.  But  he 
had  a  much  more  extensive  knowledge  of  the  world  and  of 
Continental  politics  than  had  fallen  to  the  lot  of  Peel.  He 
had  begun  travelling  very  young,  and  had  been  led  into  scenes 
memorable  for  ever  in  the  history  of  England.  He  had 
again  and  again  visited  the  English  camping-grounds  during 
the  great  Peninsular  War.  He  had  hung  on  the  rough  edge 
of  battle.  He  had  ridden  along  the  British  lines  with  Sir 
Arthur  Wellesley,  afterwards  to  be  the  Duke  of  Wellington. 

D  2 


$6  SIR    ROBERT    PEEL 

He  had  visited  Napoleon  in  Elba,  and  had  heard  Napoleon 
declare,  with  a  sigh,  that  war  was  a  splendid  game ;  and  he  had 
tried  to  explain  to  the  fallen  Emperor  that  there  was  not  the 
slightest  likelihood  of  Wellington  trying  to  seize  the  English 
Crown.  He  had  known  Metternich  and  Talleyrand,  and, 
indeed,  must  have  known,  even  in  his  earlier  days,  almost 
everyone  worth  knowing  in  Europe.  He  had  been  brought 
up  among  statesmen,  and  great  nobles,  and  philosophers, 
and  poets.  He  had  large  and  liberal  tastes,  and  he  loved 
to  hear  the  talk  of  gifted  and  famous  men  and  women.  He 
had  sat  as  a  child  at  the  feet  of  Fox,  and  had  talked  at 
Florence  with  the  widow  of  Charles  Edward,  'the  Young 
Chevalier.'  He  was  eclectic  in  his  literary  and  artistic  tastes, 
and  he  tried  verse-writing,  novel-writing,  play-writing,  and 
showed  some  aptitude  in  each  branch  of  literature.  Some  of 
his  smaller  and  lighter  poems  are  bright  and  pretty, — and 
far  above  the  level  of  the  ordinary  old-fashioned  '  Verses  by 
A  Person  of  Quality.'  But  his  chief  passion  was  for  politics  ; 
the  House  of  Commons  was  his  natural  arena.  He  was  sent 
into  the  House,  by  the  influence  of  his  family,  before  he 
had  quite  come  of  age.  The  same  thing  had  happened  to 
Fox.  Nobody  troubled  to  call  attention  to  the  fact,  and  it 
passed  over  without  any  intervention  of  Parliamentary  laws. 
Russell  was,  in  fact,  abroad  when  his  election  to  Parliament 
took  place.  He  had  early  shown  himself  a  true  descendant 
of  his  great  Whig  family.  If  Peel  was  born  a  Tory,  Russell 
was  surely  born  a  Whig.  He  did  not  at  first  very  much 
like  the  House  of  Commons.  Its  Toryism  made  him 
despondent,  and  he  at  one  time  talked  of  giving  up  political 
life  altogether.  He  was  dissuaded,  however,  by  his  friends, 
Thomas  Moore,  the  Irish  poet,  being  one  of  the  most 
energetic  in  his  remonstrances,  both  in  poetry  and  in  prose. 


PEEL— RUSSELL— CANNING  37 

Russell  made  up  his  mind  to  remain  in  Parliament.  He 
could  not  have  left  it,  although  he  seems  to  have  been  per- 
fectly sincere  at  the  time  in  his  desire  to  do  so.  It  was  his 
appointed  ground,  and  he  had  to  stay  there  and  fight  his 
long  course.  He  and  Peel,  unlike  in  so  many  other  ways, 
had  two  points  of  resemblance.  Each  was  so  shy  as  to  seem 
cold,  reserved,  and  proud  to  outsiders;  and  each  had  an 
exalted  sense  of  duty,  and  a  lofty,  disinterested,  and  unselfish 
spirit. 

Russell  soon  came  to  be  regarded  in  Parliament  as  the 
hope  of  the  Whigs,  as  Peel  was  the  hope  of  the  Tories. 
He  devoted  himself  from  the  outset  to  the  cause  of  Religious 
Liberty  and  Parliamentary  Reform.  Of  course,  he  kept  clear 
of  the  more  extreme  and  wilder  schemes  of  the  few  Radicals 
who  were  then  in  the  House  of  Commons,  and  whose  wildest 
and  most  extreme  schemes  have  nearly  all,  it  may  be  said, 
been  the  law  of  the  land  these  years  and  years  back.  But  at 
that  time,  and  to  men  brought  up  as  Russell  had  been 
brought  up,  they  seemed  crude,  far-off,  and  impracticable, 
and  he  could  not  give  them  much  countenance.  His  style 
of  speaking  was  usually  somewhat  cold  and  monotonous  at 
first,  but  as  he  went  on  he  showed  that  he  had  genuine 
debating  power  of  a  very  high  order,  and  as  much  eloquence 
as  could  lie  given  by  admirably  pointed  argument  and  re- 
markably felicitous  expression.  He  wanted  the  fire  which, 
whether  suhdued  or  allowed  to  flame,  is  essential  to  the 
genius  of  the  real  orator.  But  if  he  was  not  a  born  orator, 
he  was  a  born  del). iter.  He  was  very  quick  at  repartee,  and 
clever  in  sarcastic  phraseology.  In  short,  he  was  a  man  to  be 
contrasted  with  Peel,  and  compared  with  Peel.  One  surpassed 
in  this  quality,  and  the  other  in  that;  but  they  stood  on 
much  the  same  level,  and  were  fitting  and  worthy  antagonists 


3$  SIR  ROBERT  PEEL 

As  early  as  1819  Russell  had  brought  forward  resolutions 
in  the  House  of  Commons  in  favour  of  Parliamentary  Reform, 
which  were,  of  course,  defeated.  These  resolutions  were  very 
moderate  ;  they  merely  called  upon  the  House  to  affirm 
that  all  boroughs  found  guilty  of  gross  and  notorious  bribery 
and  corruption  should  be  disfranchised,  and  that  the  re- 
presentation should  be  transferred  to  some  large  boroughs 
or  great  counties ;  that  steps  should  be  taken  to  inquire  into 
the  extent  of  bribery  and  corruption;  and  that  the  borough 
of  Grampound,  just  convicted  of  gross  and  notorious  bribery 
and  corruption,  and  whose  representative  had  been  fined  and 
sent  to  prison,  should  be  disfranchised.  Lord  Castlereagh 
got  up  at  once  and  offered  a  sort  of  compromise.  He  said 
that  if  Lord  John  Russell  would  withdraw  his  resolutions,  and 
bring  in  a  Bill  to  disfranchise  the  borough  of  Grampound, 
the  Government  would  put  no  difficulty  in  his  way.  Russell 
accepted  the  offer,  and  withdrew  his  resolutions.  The  incident 
is  well  worth  mentioning,  as  the  first  movement  made  towards 
electoral  and  Parliamentary  reform  by  Lord  John  Russell. 

In  January,  1822,  Lord  Sidmouth  retired  from  office,  and 
Peel  succeeded  him  as  Home  Secretary.  The  recent  course 
of  events  had  seemed  on  the  whole  to  be  favourable  to  the 
Tories.  The  Cato  Street  Conspiracy  had  horrified  the  public 
mind,  and  had  turned  many  people  of  not  irrational  mood 
against  any  popular  movement.  It  was  absurd,  of  course, 
to  discover  any  relationship  between  legitimate  constitutional 
movement  for  reform  and  the  wild  schemes  of  assassins ;  but 
with  the  nation  the  first  effect  of  political  crime  is  always 
to  discourage  and  discredit  popular  movement.  That  is  the 
first  effect ;  after  a  while  cool  reflection  again  asserts  its  sway, 
and  people  who  are  capable  of  thinking  at  all  begin  to  ask 
themselves  whether  the  crime  itself  was  not  but  a  symptom 


PEEL— RUSSELL— CANNING  39 

of  a  condition  of  things  in  the  political  framework  of  society 
which  called  for  remedy  rather  than  repression. 

For  the  moment,  however,  the  position  seemed  decidedly 
in  favour  of  the  Tories,  so  far  as  any  reform  movement  was 
concerned.  In  the  session  of  1822  Lord  John  Russell 
brought  forward  a  very  moderate  resolution,  declaring  that 
'  the  present  state  of  representation  requires  serious  considera- 
tion.' The  resolution  was  rejected  by  a  majority  of  105 
votes.  Later  in  the  session  Brougham  brought  forward  a 
motion  declaring  that  '  the  influence  of  the  Crown  is  destruc- 
tive of  the  independence  of  Parliament,'  and  that  that  in- 
fluence 'has  largely  increased  since  Dunning's  resolution  in 
1780.'  The  resolution  referred  to  was  the  famous  motion, 
carried  in  1780  by  Mr.  Dunning,  the  great  advocate,  after- 
wards Lord  Ashburton,  which  declared  that  '  the  power  of 
the  Crown  has  increased,  is  increasing,  and  ought  to  be 
diminished.'  That  resolution  was  carried  by  a  majority  of 
18.  Brougham's  was  rejected  by  a  majority  of  115.  But 
the  Catholic  question  was  distinctly  advancing.  In  the  same 
session  (1822)  Canning  brought  in  a  Bill  to  admit  Catholic 
peers  to  sit  in  the  House  of  Lords.  The  Bill  passed  through 
the  Commons,  and  was  only  rejected  in  the  House  of  Lords 
by  a  majority  of  42. 

On  the  1 2th  of  August,  1822,  the  world  was  horrified  by 
the  news  that  Lord  Castlereagh  had  committed  suicide. 
Canning  had  already  received  the  appointment  of  Governor- 
General  of  India,  and  was  actually  about  to  start  for  Calcutta. 
It  was  thought  necessary,  however,  that  he  should  be  invited 
to  take  the  office  of  Foreign  Secretary,  which  the  death  of 
Castlereagh  had  left  vacant,  and  he  accepted  the  invitation, 
and  renounced  the  more  splendid  and  lucrative  position 
which   had   been   given   to   him.      The   Government   was 


40  SIR    ROBERT    PEEL 

thereupon  divided  into  what  might  properly  be  called  two 
sections  or  parties — one  under  Canning,  and  the  other  under 
Teel.      Peel   led   those  who  still  accepted  the  wisdom  of 
Lord  Eldon — 'the  unbending  Tories,'  as  Macaulay  called 
them  at  a  later  date.     Canning  was  the  leader  of  those  who 
advocated  Catholic  Emancipation.     As  regards  other  ques- 
tions, there  was  little  and  lessening  difference  of  opinion 
between  Peel  and  Canning.      Peel  was  well  disposed   to 
accept  the  bold  and  liberal  foreign  policy  of  his  colleague  ; 
Canning  was  quite  advanced  enough  as  an  economist  to 
follow  the  widening  financial  views  of  Peel.     Peel  was  much 
occupied  just  then  with  the  measures  of  financial  reform 
which  were  caused  by  the  disturbed  and  distressed  condition 
of  the  country.    Peel  passed  his  Currency  Bill.     Huskisson, 
who  had  become  President  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  carried 
his  Reciprocity  Duties  Bill,  which  much  mitigated  the  effect 
of  the  Navigation  Laws.     It  is  not  true  that  there  was  any- 
thing  unsatisfactory    in    the   relations    between    Peel   and 
Canning.     Peel  had  the  most  generous  admiration  for  the 
genius  and  the  character  of  Canning.     A  little  later  on  Peel 
told  one  of  his  relatives  that,  when  he  went  down  to  a 
Cabinet  Council  with  some  matter  of  great  importance  in 
his  mind,  and  his  own  ideas  made  up  as  to  what  ought  to 
be  done  concerning  it,  he  generally  found  himself  anticipated 
by  Canning  in  the  very  view  of  the  subject  which  he  himself 
had  taken — found  Canning  advancing  the  very  reasons  on 
which  he   had  himself  proceeded,  '  clothed,'   Peel  added, 
'in  better  language  than  any  into  which  I  could  have  put 
them.'     It  would,  indeed,  be  impossible  that  these  two  men 
should  not  have  come  to  appreciate  each  other  thoroughly 
if  time  had  been  spared  to  both  of  them.     Time  was  not 
spared  to  Canning. 


PEEL — RUSSELL — CANNING  41 

In  1S27    Lord  Liverpool  became  seriously  ill,  and  felt 
that   he  could  not  continue  in  office.     The  question  then 
arose,  What  was  to  be  done  ?     Could  the  Government  be 
carried  on  under  the  leadership  of  a  man  of  such  command- 
ing influence  as  the  Duke  of  Wellington — a  Government  on 
the  old,  unbending  Tory  principles,  pledged  more  or  less 
to  resist  every  reform  ?     No,    there    did    not    seem    much 
chance  for  such  an    Administration.     The   great  difficulty 
was  the  Catholic  question,  and  the  majority  of  the  House 
of  Commons  had   by  this  time  become  educated  on  the 
Catholic  question.     Only  the  King  and  the  House  of  Lords 
really  stood  out  on  the  old  lines  of  unqualified  resistance. 
It  seemed,  then,  almost  out  of  the  question   to  think  of 
setting  up  such  a  Ministry,  with  any  hope  of  its  keeping  up 
when  it  had  been  set  up  ;  and  there  did  not  seem  much  to 
be  gained  by  setting  up  a  Ministry  that  must  incontinently 
tumble  down  again.     Under  such  conditions,  every  eye  was 
naturally  turned  on  Canning.     The  King  did  not  like  the 
idea   of  accepting   Canning   as    his    Prime    Minister.     He 
chafed  at  it  a  good  deal ;   but  it  had  to  be  done.     The 
King  sent  for  Canning,  and  invited  him  to  form  an  Adminis- 
tration in  which  Catholic  Emancipation  was  to  be  an  open 
question,  but  which  was  to  be  pledged  to  oppose  any  move 
ment  for  Parliamentary  reform.     Canning  consented,  and 
was  quite  consistent  in  doing  so.     He  considered  that  a 
great  step  had  been  gained  when  the  King  went  so  far  as  to 
allow  Catholic  Emancipation  to  be  an  open  question,  and 
he  was    in    agreement  with  Wellington    and    Peel    on    the 
subject  of  Parliamentary  reform.     But  his  difficulties  were 
only  beginning.     The  Duke  of  Wellington  and  Lord  Eldon 
determined  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  new  Administra- 
tion, and  Robert  Peel  went  with  them.     It  is  not  likely  that 


42  SIR   ROBERT  PEEL 

Peel  would  have  taken  such  a  step  if  left  to  himself.  His 
differences  of  opinion  with  Canning  were  not  nearly  so 
great  as  they  had  been.  He  no  longer  acknowledged  him- 
self to  be  an  inveterate  Tory,  set  against  all  progressive 
movements,  and  opposed  in  principle  to  all  reform.  Again 
and  again,  in  his  speeches  in  the  House  of  Commons,  he 
had  given  it  to  be  understood  that  he  was  prepared  to  con- 
sider measures  on  their  own  merits,  and  not  according  to 
some  a  priori  principle  of  judgment.  He  was  opposed  to 
the  kind  of  Parliamentary  reform  which  Russell  and 
Lambton,  the  celebrated  Lord  Durham  of  a  later  day,  and 
Brougham  and  Burdett,  were  continually  bringing  forward. 
But  he  had  passed  away  altogether  from  the  stone-hatchet 
period  of  political  life.  As  regards  the  Catholic  question, 
he  must  already  have  begun  to  see  clearly  enough  that 
things  could  not  long  remain  in  their  existing  condition. 
There  would  not  seem  to  have  been  any  strong  reason, 
therefore,  why  he  should  not  accept  office  with  Canning. 
But  the  whole  question  was  settled  for  him  when  Wellington 
and  Eldon  refused  to  form  part  of  the  new  Cabinet.  It 
was  merely  a  choice  between  two  courses;  to  go  with 
Wellington,  or  to  go  with  Canning.  Every  sentiment  of 
loyalty  impelled  Peel  the  one  way.  Had  he  broken  away 
from  Wellington,  he  would  have  seemed  to  be  breaking 
away  from  his  party  ;  and  he  had  no  intention  of  breaking 
away  from  his  party.  He  was  a  devoted  friend  to  the  Duke 
of  Wellington,  and  had  a  great  personal  regard  for  Lord 
Eldon.  He  made  up  his  mind  quickly,  and  refused  to  co- 
operate with  Canning.  There  was  nothing  then  left  for 
Canning  to  do  but  to  court  the  assistance  of  the  Whigs. 
But  the  Whigs  were  divided  among  themselves.  Some  of 
them  would  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  Canning  Adminis- 


PEEL— -RUSSELL— CANNING  43 

tration.  Lord  Grey,  Lord  Althorp,  and  others,  were  of 
this  mind;  while  Lord  John  Russell,  on  the  other  hand, 
was  so  pleased  to  see  Canning  at  the  head  of  the  Govern- 
ment that  he  declared  himself  not  unwilling  for  the  moment 
to  refrain  from  pressing  forward  the  question  of  Parlia- 
mentary reform.  Some  of  the  Whigs  consented  to  join 
Canning.  Lord  Eldon  was  succeeded  in  the  office  of  Lord 
Chancellor  by  Lord  Lyndhurst,  and  Peel  became  the  recog- 
nised leader  of  the  Opposition  in  the  House  of  Commons. 

The  Canning  Administration  lasted  but  a  very  short 
time.  It  was  broken  up  by  the  death  of  Canning  himself, 
on  August  8,  1827,  almost  immediately  after  his  accession 
to  the  position  of  Prime  Minister.  Canning's  health  had 
long  been  giving  way,  and  the  strain  and  stress  of  the  life 
of  office  and  the  House  of  Commons  were  too  much  for 
him.  He  never  had  any  great  physical  or  constitutional 
strength,  and  his  was  an  eager  and  a  sensitive  spirit,  not 
over  well  suited  at  the  best  for  the  wear  and  tear,  the  fierce 
faction  fights,  of  English  public  life.  He  was  unsparing  of 
himself  in  debate,  as,  indeed,  it  must  be  owned  that  he  was 
unsparing  of  others  as  well.  He  was  as  strenuous  a  com- 
batant as  Disraeli  in  later  times,  and  he  had  little  of  that 
robust  endurance,  that  proud  patience  which  distinguished 
Disraeli.  After  the  death  of  Canning  an  attempt  was 
made  to  carry  on  his  principle  of  administration  by  Lord 
Goderich,  but  the  attempt  was  not  a  success.  The  equipoise 
was  too  delicate  and  too  difficult  to  be  long  maintained  ; 
certainly  too  difficult  to  be  long  maintained  by  a  Minister 
of  the  moderate  capacity  and  influence  of  Lord  Goderich. 
The  place  had  not  yet  been  found  for  a  really  Liberal 
Administration ;  and  there  was  no  way  open  for  anything 
effective  in  the  way  of  compromise.     Lord  Goderich  soon 


44  SIR    ROliKRT    1'KKL 

threw  up  the  task,  and  there  was  nothing  for  it  but  to  fall 
back  upon  the  Duke  of  Wellington  and  an  avowed  Tory 
Administration.  The  task  to  be  solved  was  how  to  govern 
England  without  any  regard  to  the  voice  of  the  English 
people. 

The  Duke  of  Wellington  had  far  too  much  good  sense 
to  be  very  confident  in  his  capacity  to  accomplish  such  a 
feat ;  but  when  his  master  sent  for  him,  and  asked  him  to 
undertake  the  work,  he  could  only  answer  with  the  simple 
American  soldier  described  by  Nathaniel  Hawthorne,  '  Sir, 
I  will  try.'  Then,  and  at  all  other  times,  the  Duke  of 
Wellington  regarded  himself  merely  as  a  soldier  of  the 
Crown,  and  his  one  great  object  was  to  see  that  the 
Government  of  the  King  was  carried  on.  He  accepted 
office,  therefore,  in  the  face  of  the  great  rising  trouble 
about  Reform  and  the  already  active  trouble  about  Catholic 
Emancipation.  One  little  sign  of  a  recognition  of  coming 
change  was  given  in  the  fact  that  Lord  Lyndhurst,  who 
had  been  Lord  Chancellor  under  Mr.  Canning  and  Lord 
Goderich,  was  continued  in  his  office,  and  that  Lord  Eldon, 
whose  views  admitted  of  no  compromise,  was  not  invited  to 
return  to  the  woolsack. 

Peel  became  Home  Secretary  once  again.  Huskisson 
was  Secretary  for  War  and  the  Colonies.  Lord  Palmerston 
was  Secretary  at  War.  Lord  John  Russell  brought  forward 
his  motion  for  a  repeal  of  the  Test  and  Corporation  Acts. 
The  Test  and  Corporation  Acts  directed  all  officers,  civil 
and  military,  under  Government,  to  receive  the  sacrament 
according  to  the  forms  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  made 
similar  provision  for  corporate  officials.  The  first  Act  was 
passed  in  1673,  but  its  rigours  were  mitigated  in  1727  by 
a  yearly  Act  of  Indemnity  for   all    Dissenters  who  might 


PEEL— RUSSELL— CANNING  45 

have  held  office   contrary  to   its  provisions.      One  of  the 
great   arguments  of  those  who  sustained   the  disqualifying 
Acts  was  that  these  measures  did  no  real  harm  to  anybody 
after  the  passing  of  the  Bill  of  Annual  Indemnity.     A  Dis- 
senter, it  was  urged,  might  hold  an  office  to  which  he  had 
been  elected,  and  was  only  put  to  the  nominal  trouble  of 
availing  himself  of  the  provisions  of  the  Bill  of  Indemnity. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  was  reasonably  contended  that  the 
passing  of  the  Indemnity  Act  rendered  the  Test  Act  abso- 
lutely useless  for  the  purposes  which  those  who  passed  it 
had  in  view.     It  could  no  longer  shut  out  Dissenters  ;  it 
could  only  impose  on  them  an  offensive  and  a  futile  badge 
of  religious  inferiority.     They  had  to  ask  the  forgiveness  of 
Parliament  for  their  impertinence  in  accepting  offices  which 
a  member  of  the  State  Church  was  free  to  accept  without 
the  permission  of  anybody  but  those  who  elected  him.     It 
was  an  insult   to   1  Hssent,  and  it  was  no  protection  to  the 
Church,  even  if  it  were  supposed  that  the  Church  needed 
any  such  protection,  or  could  be  protected  in  such  a  way. 
Lord   John    Russell   carried    his   motion   in   the    House   of 
Commons  by  a  majority   of  237   to   193,  and    a    measure 
founded  on   his  motion    was    passed   by  both   Houses  and 
became  law  on  May  9,  1828.     The  old  order  was  changing, 
giving  place  to  new. 

The  great  battle  about  religious  disqualification  had  yet 
to  be  fought.  The  agitation  for  Catholic  Emancipation 
began  to  swell  to  portentous  proportions  in  Ireland.  O'Con- 
nell,  Sheil,  and  other  prominent  men  in  Irish  politics  were 
at  the  head  of  the  movement.  The  Catholic  Association 
had  been  formed  in  Ireland  to  carry  on  the  agitation.  An 
Act  was  passed  in  1825  ordaining  its  suppression  lor 
three  years.     The  Association,  however,  could  not  really  be 


46  SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 

suppressed.  At  least,  if  it  disappeared  under  one  name,  it 
instantly  rose  to  the  surface  under  another.  Nothing  was 
more  easy  than  to  start  a  fresh  association  with  a  new  title ; 
or,  rather,  indeed,  to  carry  on  the  old  Association  under  a 
new  title.  If  the  new  name  were  objectionable,  nothing 
was  more  easy  than  to  hold  a  series  of  public  meetings  not 
bearing  the  name  of  any  association.  O'Connell  was  a 
master  of  every  art,  and  craft,  and  stratagem  by  which  to 
defeat  the  absurd  and  hopeless  policy  of  the  Administration. 
The  agitation  spread  like  wildfire;  all  the  King's  horses 
and  all  the  King's  men  could  not  prevent  the  conflagration 
from  extending  over  the  country.  In  truth,  the  policy  of 
Catholic  disqualification  had  come  to  be  an  anomaly  and  an 
anachronism. 

Peel  had  to  consider  how  the  new  conditions  were  to  be 
met.  No  part  of  his  public  conduct,  except,  perhaps,  his 
action  later  with  regard  to  Free  Trade,  was  more  sharply 
criticised  by  some  of  his  former  friends  and  colleagues  than 
the  resolution  to  which  he  finally  came  on  the  subject  of 
Catholic  Emancipation.  He  found  on  coming  into  office 
that  the  Catholic  Association,  under  one  name  or  other,  in 
one  form  or  other,  had  taken  fast  hold  of  the  whole  Catholic 
population  of  Ireland.  He  found  also,  that  it  had  the  sympathy 
of  all  the  Liberals  of  England.  The  Act  for  the  suppression 
of  the  Catholic  Association  was  just  about  to  expire,  its  time 
having  run  out.  What  was  the  proper  course  to  be  pursued? 
Peel,  as  Home  Secretary,  was  responsible  for  the  government 
of  Ireland.  On  him  lay,  or  would  lie,  the  final  reproach  if 
things  were  to  go  wrong  in  Ireland.  He  had  taken  office  at 
the  express  request  of  the  Duke  of  Wellington.  The  moment 
the  Duke  received  a  summons  to  attend  the  King,  and  had 
from  the  King's  own  mouth  an  invitation  to  form  a  Govern- 


PEEL— RUSSELL— CANNING  47 

ment,  he  sent  to  Peel,  and  told  George  IV.  that  he  relied 
on  Peel's  co-operation,  and  that  he  would  see  no  one  and 
consult  with  no  one  on  the  subject  until  he  had  talked  with 
Peel.  It  may  be  mentioned  that  the  King  told  Wellington 
that  the  new  Administration  ought  to  be  composed  of  persons 
of  both  opinions  with  regard  to  the  Catholic  question,  and 
that  he  had  no  objection  to  anybody  except  Lord  Grey. 
There  was  carte  blanche  for  the  Duke,  as  the  Duke  himself 
expressed  it  to  Peel,  with  the  exception  of  one  man.  That 
one  man  was  a  statesman  and  a  patriot  of  the  purest  cha- 
racter and  the  highest  political  purpose.  The  King  would 
have  anybody  except  Lord  Grey. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  statesmen  of  that  day  had  to 
struggle  with  a  sort  of  difficulty  against  which  it  is  under- 
stood that  the  more  fortunate  statesmen  of  our  time  have 
not  to  contend.  The  personal  likings  and  dislikings  of  the 
sovereign  had  to  be  considered  first  of  all.  For  a  long  term 
of  years  in  the  time  of  George  III.  and  George  IV.,  the  burn- 
ing question  of  Catholic  Emancipation  had  to  be  kept  out  of 
sight  because  these  sovereigns  had  an  objection  to  hearing 
it  talked  about.  The  whims  of  the  king  had  to  be  consulted 
and  allowed  for  as  if  they  were  the  whims  of  some  spoilt 
prima  donna  whose  manager  has  to  humour  her  at  any  cost. 
The  king  will  not  hear  of  this  measure — the  king  will  not 
hear  of  that  measure — the  king  will  not  have  this  man — the 
king  will  not  part  with  that  man  ;  such  were  the  difficulties 
with  which  the  statesmen  of  those  days  had  to  put  up. 
Nor  had  they  merely  to  put  up  with  them  ;  they  had  to 
make  them  a  part  of  all  their  political  plans  and  cal- 
culation ;.  A  great  Minister  might  see  his  way  clear  and 
1  >right  1  lefi  »re  him  to  the  accomplishment  of  some  momentous 
reform  ;  he  might  have  convinced  himself  thoroughly  that 


48  SIR    ROBERT    PEEL 

the  reform  was  needed  for  the  peace  and  the  prosperity  of 
the  country  ;  he  might  have  had  the  most  conclusive  evidence 
that  the  vast  majority  of  the  people  would  welcome  it  with 
rapture — but  then,  what  of  all  this  ?  The  king  did  not  like 
it — the  king  would  not  listen  to  any  talk  about  it — it  would 
be  useless  to  propose  it  now — we  must  only  wait — we  must 
only  wait.  No  doubt,  in  the  end  the  king  gave  way.  In 
most  cases,  at  least,  he  gave  way  in  sulky,  sullen  anger, 
after  almost  hysterical  outbursts  of  passion.  He  had  to  be 
coerced  into  giving  way,  as  a  stubborn  child  has  to  be  coerced 
into  taking  the  medicine  that  is  good  for  him.  Anything 
more  unkingly  than  the  scenes  between  the  kings  and  the 
Ministers  at  this  period  of  our  history  it  is  hardly  possible  to 
conceive. 

The  King,  then,  would  not  have  Lord  Grey  on  any 
terms ;  and  he  would  not  have  Catholic  Emancipation  made 
a  Cabinet  question.  It  was  to  remain  open  ;  perhaps  it 
would  vanish,  or  be  swallowed  up  by  the  earth,  if  only  it  were 
left  alone  for  a  while.  In  any  case,  happen  what  would, 
the  King  insisted  that  there  must  be  a  Protestant  Lord 
Chancellor,  a  Protestant  Lord  Lieutenant,  and  a  Protestant 
Lord  Chancellor  of  Ireland.  On  these  conditions  the  Duke 
of  Wellington  was  free  to  do  the  best  he  could. 

Peel  was  by  no  means  anxious  to  come  back  to  office; 
at  all  events,  he  was  unwilling  to  come  back  to  office  at  that 
time.  This  was  not  because  he  shrank  in  the  least  from  the 
responsibility  of  any  position  in  which  he  could  act  on  the 
best  inspiration  of  his  own  judgment.  He  was  not  a  man 
to  hold  back  because  of  any  feeling  of  that  kind.  But  he  had 
grave  doubts  as  to  whether,  under  all  the  peculiar  conditions 
of  the  times — and  the  will  of  the  Sovereign  among  the  rest  of 
them — he  could  really  do  any  good.  We  have  the  fullest  and 


FEEL— RUSSELL— CANNING  49 

most  candid  accounts  of  all  his  opinions  and  feelings  at  three 
great  stages  of  his  public  career  in  the  Memoirs  which  he  left 
behind  him,  and  which  were  published  after  his  death  by  his 
trustees,  the  late  Lord  Stanhope  and  the  late  Lord  Cardwell. 
If  ever  a  statesman  did  his  best  to  put  posterity  in  a  con- 
dition to  judge  of  him  and  his  motives  at  each  crisis  in  his 
public  life,  Peel  certainly  is  entitled  to  that  praise.  For  those 
who  take  any  real  interest  in  politics  and  the  growth  of  poli- 
tical ideas,  there  is  hardly  any  reading  more  fascinating  than 
these  letters  and  memoranda,  which  lay  bare  to  us  the  whole 
working  of  Peel's  intellect  and  conscience,  and  show  us  how 
ideas  germinated  in  his  mind,  and  at  last  grew  up  into 
blossom  and  fruit. 


50  SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 


CHAPTER  V 

THE    CI.ARE    ELECTION 

The  Catholic  question  burning — Peel  studies  the  question,  and  recog- 
nises facts — The  Clare  election,  its  meaning  and  its  consequences 
■ — Lord  Anglesey's  views — Peel  begins  to  see  his  way. 

Peel  tells  us  how,  on  the  one  hand,  it  appeared  to  him  that 
the  attempt  to  form  a  united  Government  on  the  principle  of 
resistance  to  the  claims  of  the  Roman  Catholics  was  perfectly 
hopeless.  '  In  the  preceding  year  the  measure  of  concession 
had  been  negatived  in  the  House  of  Commons,  by  a  majority 
of  four  votes  only,  by  a  very  full  House.'  Peel,  it  wTill  be 
observed,  through  all  his  career  kept  taking  account  of  the 
votes  of  the  House  of  Commons,  as  the  pilot  takes  his  sound- 
ings. He  knew  perfectly  well  that,  however  the  House  of 
Lords  or  the  Sovereign  might  resist  for  a  time,  the  decision 
of  the  House  of  Commons  must  prevail  in  the  end.  That 
House  was,  indeed,  very  imperfect  as  a  representative  institu- 
tion at  the  time ;  but  still,  it  was  a  representative  institution 
of  some  sort,  and  the  House  of  Lords  was  not,  and  the 
Sovereign  was  not.  Peel  was  a  man  of  the  highest  principles ; 
but  he  was  not,  and  never  could  be,  a  political  fanatic.  He 
never  could  make  a  fetish  of  some  partisan  article  of  faith. 
He  never  believed  himself  to  have  started  into  political  life 
with  all  the  full  outfit  of  idea  and  information  which  he  was 
ever  to  need  or  to  obtain.     He  did  not  suppose  that  he  had 


THE    CLARE   ELECTION  5  I 

set  out  on  his  new  career  with  a  store,  like  the  bridal  trousseau 
of  a  Swiss  girl,  which  was  to  last  a  whole  lifetime.  He  did 
not,  it  must  be  owned,  look  far  ahead.  He  had  not  time  for 
scanning  the  political  horizon  with  a  field-glass.  He  was  no 
star-gazer.  He  was  content  to  wait  until  a  political  question 
came  up,  and  justified  its  title  to  consideration.  But  when 
a  political  question  did  thus  come  up,  he  was  utterly  in- 
capable of  the  weakness  that  would  close  its  eyes  to  realities, 
and  go  on  as  if  nothing  had  happened.  No  new  fact  could 
come  up  so  serious,  so  formidable,  or  so  portentous,  that 
Peel  would  not  find  himself  able  to  confront  it  and  put  it  to 
question. 

He  found,  then,  that  a  Government  could  no  longer  be 
held  together  on  the  principle  of  resistance  to  the  claims  of 
the  Catholics.  This  was  not  a  welcome  fact  to  Peel,  who 
still  retained  his  old  objections  to  Catholic  Emancipation;  but 
there  was  the  fact,  and  he  accepted  it.  He  was  anxious, 
therefore,  that  a  chance  should  be  given  to  some  of  Canning's 
friends  who  had  left  Lord  Liverpool's  Administration,  and 
that  they  should  be  invited  to  take  office  under  the  Duke  of 
Wellington.  He  was  not,  in  his  heart,  very  sanguine  of  any 
great  good  to  come  even  from  that ;  but  he  felt  sure  that 
the  effort  ought  to  be  made — that  the  experiment  ought  to 
be  tried.  In  accordance  with  his  suggestion,  therefore,  Lord 
Palmerston,  Huskisson,  and  one  or  two  other  Canningites, 
became  members  of  the  Duke  of  Wellington's  Cabinet. 
William  Lamb,  afterwards  Lord  Melbourne,  a  friend  of 
Canning's,  who  had  not  been  in  Lord  Liverpool's  Adminis- 
tration, promised  to  lend  his  assistance  to  the  new  Govern- 
ment. But  Peel  was  not  hopeful.  He  did  not  yet  see  his 
way  to  the  granting  of  Catholic  Emancipation  ;  but  he- 
saw  more  and  more  clearly,   day  by  day,  the  tremendous 

E  2 


52  SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 

difficulty  of  resisting  the  demand.  The  moment  the  Ministry 
was  formed — the  moment,  indeed,  that  he  saw  it  in  a  fair  way 
to  formation — he  set  himself  down  to  the  task  of  examining 
keenly  and  critically  into  the  whole  condition  of  Ireland. 

The  Marquis  of  Wellesley,  elder  brother  of  the  Duke  or 
Wellington, — who  would  have  been  historically  famous  if 
his  renown  had  not  been  overshadowed  by  that  of  his 
brother, — had  been  for  seven  years  Lord  Lieutenant  of 
Ireland.  He  was  in  favour  of  Catholic  Emancipation,  and 
had  brought  forward  a  motion  in  its  support  in  the  House  of 
Lords.  He  had  remained  in  office  during  the  Administration 
of  Canning  and  that  of  Lord  Goderich.  But  when  the 
Duke  of  Wellington  entered  on  his  task  of  government 
with  the  announcement  that  Catholic  Emancipation  was 
not  to  be  a  Cabinet  measure,  Lord  Wellesley  felt  that  he 
could  no  longer  continue  to  hold  his  place  in  Dublin  Castle. 
He  resigned  his  office,  and  was  succeeded  by  Lord  Anglesey. 
Lord  Anglesey  had  been  a  brilliant  cavalry  officer  in  the 
wars  against  Napoleon,  had  been  commander  of  the  English 
cavalry  in  Flanders,  and  had  done  splendid  service  at 
Waterloo.  While  he  was  in  Parliament  he  had  talked 
violently  and  wildly  about  Irish  agitation,  and  the  feasibility 
of  putting  it  down  by  a  few  indiscriminate  charges  of  cavalry. 
It  was  believed  then  by  many,  that  when  Lord  Anglesey 
was  made  Viceroy  of  Ireland  he  was  put  into  that  position 
with  the  intention  of  the  Cabinet,  and  with  full  willingness 
on  his  own  part,  that  a  very  high-handed  system  of  authority 
should  be  established.  Lord  Anglesey  disappointed  ex- 
pectation on  both  sides — agreeably  on  the  part  of  the 
Catholics,  and  disagreeably  on  the  part  of  the  Orangemen. 
He  showed  himself  anxious  to  be  absolutely  impartial ;  he 
tried  hard  to  keep  the  Orangemen  in  order,  and  he  soon  came 


THE   CLARE   ELECTION  53 

to  admit  the  justice  of  the  Catholic  claims.  William  Lamb 
consented  to  become  Chief  Secretary  to  the  Lord  Lieutenant. 
Peel  then  set  himself  down  to  master  the  Irish  question. 
He  put  himself  into  private  and  continued  communication 
with  an  old  friend,  Mr.  Gregory,  Under-Secretary  to  the 
Lord  Lieutenant,  a  man  little  disposed  to  favour  Catholic 
claims  ;  he  sought  information  from  Lord  Wellesley,  and  of 
course  was  in  regular  correspondence  with  Lord  Anglesey 
and  Mr.  Lamb.  One  of  the  questions  most  immediately 
pressing  for  settlement  was  what  was  to  be  done  about  the 
Act  passed  in  1S25  for  the  suppression  of  the  Catholic 
Association  and  all  unlawful  societies  and  organisations  in 
Ireland.  This  Act  was  aimed,  of  course,  chiefly  against  the 
Catholic  societies,  but  it  also  embraced  in  its  scope  the 
troublesome  Orange  associations.  The  Act,  as  has  been 
said  already,  would  expire,  if  not  expressly  continued,  with 
the  session  of  1828.  What  was  to  be  done?  Was  it  to  be 
allowed  to  expire  ?  Was  some  other  measure  to  be  devised 
which  should  succeed  it,  and  should  do  the  work  it  had 
failed  to  do?  There  could  be  no  second  opinion  as  to 
the  failure  of  the  Act.  The  Catholic  associations  and  the 
Orange  societies  were  going  on  as  though  it  had  never  been 
called  into  existence.  The  opinions  of  the  authorities  were 
various.  Lord  Anglesey  wrote  to  William  Lamb  imploring 
him  to  c keep  matters  quiet  in  Parliament,  if  possible,' and 
assuring  him  that  the  less  said  about  Catholic  and  Protestant 
the  better.  Lord  Anglesey  appeared  to  be  seized  with  a 
conviction  that,  if  people  could  only  be  got  to  desist  from 
talking  over  the  Catholic  question,  the  whole  agitation  would 
perish  for  lack  of  public  notice — die  of  offended  pride 
because  no  man  regarded  it.  The  gallant  soldier  was 
puzzled  by  the  condition  of  affairs,  and  was  well  nigh  at  his 


54  SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 

wits'  end  for  a  mode  of  remedy.  He  was  clearly,  however, 
against  the  renewal  of  the  Act  of  1825.  'If,'  he  says,  'we 
have  a  mind  to  have  a  good  blaze  again,  we  may  at  once 
command  it  by  re-enacting  the  expiring  Bill ;  and  when  we 
have  even  improved  it,  and  rendered  it  perfect,  we  shall 
find  that  it  will  not  be  acted  upon.'  Mr.  Lamb  wrote  to 
Peel  to  say  that,  if  a  measure  could  be  framed  which  would 
prevent  perpetual  debate  in  Dublin  upon  Roman  Catholic 
affairs,  it  would  be  a  very  good  thing,  and  would  be  secretly 
approved  of  by  all  the  more  moderate  and  rational  among 
the  Catholics  themselves.  But  he  had  wholesome  doubts 
as  to  whether  any  such  Act  could  be  devised,  or  whether, 
even  if  it  were  devised,  it  could  be  applied.  He  falls  back 
upon  great  hopes— the  old,  familiar  hopes — that  the  Catholics 
would  quarrel  among  themselves  ;  he  thinks  they  are,  indeed, 
already  beginning  to  quarrel  among  themselves,  and  there 
may  be  some  chance  of  getting  rid  of  the  agitation  in  that  way. 
They  were  perplexed  in  the  extreme,  these  men  of  Dublin 
Castle,  in  those  days.  One  reads  the  letters  of  Lord  Anglesey 
with  an  almost  unqualified  admiration  for  the  kindly  and 
generous  nature  of  the  man,  and  for  the  positively  impas- 
sioned desire  of  the  Waterloo  hero  to  avoid  any  spilling  of 
blood.  The  voice  of  Lord  Anglesey  is  always  for  moderation 
and  for  peace.  He  did  not  see  his  way,  indeed  ;  but,  at  the 
time,  who  did?  He  appears  to  have  had  instincts  which 
might  have  guided  him  better  than  professional  statesman- 
ship appeared  likely  to  guide  other  men. 

Peel  kept  his  head  perfectly  cool  and  his  judgment 
dear  and  unclouded  all  this  time.  He  had  to  keep  his 
mind  upon  England  and  Ireland  at  once.  While  closely 
considering  what  could  be  done  in  the  way  of  legislation  to 
keep  Ireland  quiet,  he  had  also  to  take  account  of  all  that 


THE   CLARE   ELECTION  55 

was  passing  in  England  with  regard  to  the  grievance  of 
which  Ireland  most  bitterly  complained.  On  May  8,  1828, 
a  resolution  was  brought  forward  in  the  House  of  Commons 
by  Sir  Francis  Burdett,  declaring  it  expedient  to  consider 
the  state  of  the  laws  affecting  his  Majesty's  Roman  Catholic 
subjects  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  '  with  a  view  to  such  a 
final  and  conciliatory  adjustment  as  may  be  conducive  to 
the  peace  and  strength  of  the  United  Kingdom,  to  the 
stability  of  the  Protestant  Establishment,  and  to  the  general 
satisfaction  and  concord  of  all  classes  of  his  Majesty's 
subjects.'  This  resolution  was  carried  by  a  majority  of  272 
to  266.  'There  was  thus,'  Peel  says  in  one  of  his  Notes, 
'  for  the  first  time  in  that  Parliament,  a  majority  of  the  House 
of  Commons  in  favour  of  the  Roman  Catholic  claims.' 
Still  more  significant,  perhaps,  is  another  comment  made 
by  Peel.  '  It  was  remarked  by  Mr.  Brougham,  who  closed 
the  debate,  that  no  single  member  of  those  who  had 
opposed  the  motion  of  Sir  Francis  Burdett  had  affirmed 
the  proposition  that  things  could  remain  as  they  were,  and 
that  it  was  impossible  to  conceal  or  deny  the  great  pro- 
gress which  this  question  had  made  in  Parliament  and  the 
much  greater  out  of  doors.' 

That  was  just  the  consideration  to  give  Peel  pause,  to 
make  him  stop  and  think,  to  make  him  keenly  question 
himself— the  consideration  that  no  man— no,  not  one — 
among  the  sturdiest  opponents  of  Catholic  Emancipation  in 
the  House  of  Commons  '  had  affirmed  the  proposition  that 
things  could  remain  as  they  were.'  For  a  man  who  is  not 
a  dreamer  or  a  mere  fanatic  this  consideration  is  a  call  to 
action.  A  constructive  statesman  then  asks  himself  only 
as  to  the  best  course  reform  can  take.  The  day  for  blankly 
opposing  it  is  gone  for  him.    It  is  interesting,  too,  to  notice 


56  SIR    ROBERT   PEEL 

the  quiet,  practical  way  in  which  Peel  enumerates  the  prin- 
cipal speakers  on  both  sides  of  the  debate.  On  the  side  of 
Sir  Francis  Burdett  there  arc  Sir  James  Mackintosh,  William 
Lamb,  Charles  Grant  (President  of  the  Board  of  Trade), 
Huskisson,  Brougham,  and  many  others  of  weight  and 
capacity.  On  the  other  side  are  Sir  Charles  Wetherell,  Sir 
Robert  Inglis,  Leslie  Foster,  and  the  like.  Peel  drily 
observes  that,  '  without  depreciating  the  abilities  or  authority 
of  those  who  concurred  with  me  in  resisting  the  motion ' — 
he  was  one  of  those  who  voted  against  it — 'any  one  ac- 
quainted with  the  House  of  Commons  at  that  time  would 
readily  admit  that  the  great  preponderance  of  talent,  and  of 
influence  on  the  future  decisions  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
was  ranged  on  the  other  side.'  The  Government  had  made 
up  their  minds  not  to  seek  from  Parliament  a  continuance 
of  the  Act  of  1825. 

An  unexpected  debate  on  a  side  issue  hastened  a  crisis 
in  Irish  affairs,  and  forced  the  hand  of  Peel.  There  was  a 
Bill  brought  into  Parliament  for  the  disfranchisement  of  the 
borough  of  East  Retford.  Huskisson  was  pledged  to  sup- 
port the  transference  of  the  seat  to  Birmingham.  The 
Government  would  not  accept  that  policy.  Huskisson 
voted  against  his  colleagues,  and  sent  a  letter  to  the  Duke 
of  Wellington  offering  to  resign  his  place  in  the  Adminis- 
tration. The  Duke  acted  as  though  the  offer  to  resign  were 
an  absolute  resignation,  and  calmly  accepted  it.  Huskisson 
wrote  to  explain  ;  but  the  Duke  would  not  see  it,  and  held 
to  his  resolve.  Huskjsson  had  nothing  for  it,  of  course,  but 
to  give  up  his  office.  The  affair  created  a  great  sensation 
at  the  time  ;  it  was  made  the  theme  of  an  amusing  comic 
song  in  the  late  Lord  Lytton's  novel,  '  Paul  Clifford,'  pub- 
lished so  long  after  the  dispute  as  1S30. 


THE   CLARE    ELECTION  57 

But,  it  may  be  impatiently  asked,  What  has  this  to  do 
with  Ireland  and  the  Catholic  question  ?  As  the  result  will 
show,  it  had  much  to  do  with  both.  The  friends  of  Hus- 
kisson  greatly  resented  Wellington's  treatment  of  him  and 
the  Canningite  members  of  the  Government  followed  up 
Huskisson's  resignation  by  their  own.  Lord  Palmerston, 
Lord  Dudley,  Charles  Grant,  and  William  Lamb  resigned. 
Among  the  changes  which  were  occasioned  by  this  whole- 
sale resignation  of  offices,  was  the  appointment  of  a  new 
President  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  in  the  room  of  Charles 
Grant.  The  post  was  offered  to  Mr.  Vesey  Fitzgerald,  a 
distinguished  Irishman,  who  sat  in  the  House  of  Commons 
for  the  county  of  Clare.  Fitzgerald  accepted  the  offer,  and 
had,  accordingly,  to  resign  his  seat,  and  seek  for  re-election 
at  the  hands  of  his  constituents.  Just  before  the  dispute 
with  Huskisson,  Peel  had  positively  made  up  his  mind  to 
resign  his  office,  and  become  a  private  member.  The 
defeat  of  the  Government  on  the  motion  of  Sir  Francis 
Burdett  had  decided  him  to  take  a  step  which  he  had 
long  been  contemplating.  The  decision  of  the  House  in 
that  case  left  him,  as  leader  of  the  Government  there,  in  a 
minority  on  what  he  justly  describes  as  'the  most  important 
of  domestic  questions,'  and  he  felt  that  under  such  con- 
ditions he  could  not  continue  to  lead  the  House  which 
had  thus  virtually  thrown  him  over.  But  when  Huskisson 
and  Palmerston  and  Lamb  and  Grant  resigned,  he  felt 
that  that  was  not  the  time  to  withdraw  his  co-operation 
from  the  Duke  of  Wellington.  He  swallowed  his  dissatis- 
faction and  humiliation  at  the  result  of  the  debate  on  Sir 
Francis  Burdett's  motion,  and  he  made  a  loyal  resolve  not  to 
withdraw  from  the  side  of  his  friend  when  his  friend  was  in 
embarrassment  and  in  difficulty.     The  loyalty  of  Sir  Robert 


58  SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 

Peel  to  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  and  his  determination  to 
remain  in  the  Government  just  then,  perhaps  saved  England 
from  the  horrors  of  a  civil  war. 

When  Mr.  Vesey  Fitzgerald  resigned  his  seat  in  order 
to  seek  re-election,  the  leaders  of  the  Catholic  Association 
determined  to  oppose  him.  The  resolve  was  not  without 
its  risks.  Vesey  Fitzgerald  was  a  very  popular  man.  He 
had  always  been  a  supporter,  by  voice  and  vote,  of  the 
Catholic  claims.  His  father  had  been  one  of  the  most 
resolute  of  those  who  fought  by  the  side  of  Grattan,  and 
of  Sir  John  Parnell,  against  the  Union.  Still,  he  was  about 
to  become  a  member  of  a  Government  which  was  now, 
since  the  secession  of  the  Canningites,  resolutely  set,  to  all 
appearance,  against  the  Catholic  claims ;  and  the  leaders 
of  the  Catholic  Association  determined,  at  all  cost  and  risk, 
to  oppose  him.  The  difficulty  was  how  to  find  a  fitting 
opponent.  According  to  the  law,  the  opponent  must  be  a 
Protestant.  It  was  found  very  hard  indeed — in  the  end  it 
was  evidently  impossible — to  find  any  suitable  candidate. 
At  last  O'Connell  took  what  then  seemed  the  desperate 
resolve  of  disregarding  the  law,  and  standing  as  a  candidate 
for  Clare  county  himself.  An  influential  nobleman,  a  con- 
sistent friend  of  the  Catholic  claims,  exclaimed  when  he 
heard  the  news  :  '  This  is  going  too  far  ;  O'Connell  will  end 
by  getting  himself  hanged.' 

The  struggle  that  followed  was  one  of  the  most  remark- 
able in  the  history  of  modern  Parliamentary  elections. 
Perhaps  it  would  not  be  saying  too  much  if  we  were  to 
call  it  the  most  remarkable.  On  the  one  side  was  all  the 
influence  of  the  Government  and  of  the  landlord  class, 
including  even  the  underhand  influence  of  some  of  the 
Catholic  landlords.     On  the  other  side  were  the  people, 


THE   CLARE   ELECTION  59 

the  priests — especially  the  younger  priests — and  the  gigantic 
power  of  O'Connell.  It  is  interesting  to  read  the  letters 
of  Vesey  Fitzgerald  to  Peel  while  the  contest  was  still  in 
progress.  Fitzgerald,  although  a  polished  gentleman  and 
thorough  man  of  the  world,  appears  to  have  almost  completely 
lost  his  head.  '  The  proceedings  of  yesterday,'  he  tells  Peel 
in  a  letter,  '  were  those  of  madmen ;  but  the  country  is  mad.' 
More  than  once  he  writes  in  all  the  amazement  of  a  man  who 
thinks  the  end  of  the  world  is  coming,  and  is  coming  on  his 
account,  to  vex  him  in  particular.  It  would  seem  as  if  it 
had  never  occurred  to  him  before  that  the  vast  bulk  of  the 
Irish  Catholics  might  one  time  or  other  make  some  rally  for 
their  rights.  He  writes  as  a  Southern  planter  might  have 
written  if  he  had  found  a  negro  slave  setting  up  as  his  rival 
in  candidature  for  a  seat  in  the  American  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. He  is  full  of  denunciation  of  O'Connell,  and, 
among  other  things,  declares  that  O'Connell  does  not  dare 
to  come  to  Clare  in  person — that  he  is  '  afraid  of  personal 
risk  and  danger.'  Of  course,  O'Connell  went  to  Clare,  and 
did  not  seem  to  know  that  he  was  in  any  particular  danger, 
or  to  care  about  it.  Fitzgerald  wrote  to  Lord  Anglesey  de- 
spondently, and  calling  for  a  stronger  military  force  in  Clare. 
Lord  Anglesey  explains  to  Peel  what  is  the  strength  of  the 
military  force  in  Clare.  He  speaks  with  the  quiet,  half- 
concealed  contempt  of  an  experienced  soldier  about  the 
alarms  of  the  Clare  landlords,  and  adds,  that  if  the  force  he 
had  concentrated  on  Clare  '  cannot  keep  one  county  quiet, 
we  are  in  a  bad  way.'  He  adds,  however,  with  an  appre- 
ciation of -the  real  condition  which  some  of  the  statesmen 
did  not  perceive,  'I  cannot  persuade  myself  that  there  will 
be  serious  riot.  I  really  believe  the  agitators  are  anxious  to 
preserve  order,  and  that  they  have  the  power  as  well  as  the 


60  SIR    ROBERT   PEEL 

inclination  to  accomplish  it ;  it  will  be  an  additional  triumph 
to  them.'  One  of  the  most  conspicuous  champions  and 
supporters  of  O'Connell  in  this  Clare  Election  was  a  man 
whose  living  appearance  is  still  familiar  to  those  who  know 
the  House  of  Commons.  In  the  various  correspondences 
which  pass  between  Peel  and  Lord  Anglesey,  Peel  and 
Lord  Francis  Gower  (who  succeeded  Mr.  Lamb  in  the  office 
of  Chief  Secretary),  few  names  appear  more  often  than 
the  name  of  The  O'Gorman  Mahon.  Peel  and  O'Connell 
and  Anglesey  have  long  since  passed  away,  and  are  to  the 
present  generation  only  figures  in  history;  the  tall  and 
stately  form  of  The  O'Gorman  Mahon,  hardly  even  yet 
bowed  with  years,  is  familiar  to  all  who  visit  the  House  of 
Commons  in  our  own  day. 

Order  was  preserved  during  the  contest,  and  O'Connell 
was  elected.  A  great  constitutional  crisis  had  come.  No 
living  man  detested  Catholic  Emancipation  more  than 
Lord  Eldon.  But  Lord  Eldon,  with  all  his  fierce  and 
unconquerable  prejudices,  was  a  man  of  intellect,  and  a  man 
who  was  not  afraid  to  look  realities  straight  in  the  face.  He 
wrote  to  his  daughter  immediately  after  the  result  of  the 
struggle  in  Clare  had  been  made  known  :  '  Nothing  is 
talked  of  now  which  interests  anybody  the  least  in  the 
world  except  the  election  of  Mr.  O'Connell.'  He  adds  :  '  At 
all  events  this  business  must  bring  the  Roman  Catholic 
question,  which  has  been  so  often  discussed,  to  a  crisis 
and  a  conclusion.  The  nature  of  that  conclusion  I  do 
not  think  likely  to  be  favourable  to  Protestantism.'  Lord 
Anglesey  wrote  to  Lord  Francis  Gower  a  letter,  of  which  he 
desired  that  communication  might  be  made  to  the  Duke  of 
Wellington  and  to  Peel,  on  the  subject  of  the  Catholics 
and  their  movement,  as  affected  by  the  Clare  Election.     In 


the  glare  Election  61 

that  letter  he  says  :  '  I  believe  their  success  inevitable  ;  that 
no  power  under  heaven  can  arrest  its  progress.     There  may 
be  rebellion— you  may  put  to  death  thousands— you  may 
suppress  it  ;  but  it  will  only  be  to  put  off  the  day  of  com- 
promise.'    Lord  Anglesey  again  and  again  answers,  to  the 
arguments  of  those  who  are  for  letting  things  stay  as  they 
are  rather  than  run  any  risk— that  things  will  not  stay  as 
they  are  ;  that  no  power  on  earth  can  keep  them  as  they  are. 
During  the  whole  of  this  terrible  crisis,  when,  in  the 
judgment  of  many  calm  and  sensible  observers,  rebellion  in 
Ireland  was  certain  to  come,  Peel  never  lost  his  composure. 
He   looked   quietly,    searchingly,   over  the  whole  field  of 
controversy.      He  sought   information  from  every  source. 
At  one  moment  he  asks  himself  '  whether  it  might  not  be 
possible  that  the  fever  of  political  and  religious  excitement 
which  was  quickening  the  pulse  and  fluttering  the  bosom  of 
the  whole  Catholic  population — which  had  inspired  the  serf 
of  Clare  with  the  resolution  and  the  energy  of  a  freeman — 
which  had  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye  made  all  considera- 
tions of  personal  gratitude,  ancient  family  connection,  local 
preferences,  the  fear  of  worldly  injury,  the  hope  of  worldly 
advantage,    subordinate    to   the    one    absorbing   sense   of 
religious   obligation   and   public   duty — whether,    I  say,  it 
might  not  be  possible  that  the  contagion  of  that  feverish 
excitement  might  spread  beyond  the  barriers  which,  under 
ordinary  circumstances,   the   habits  of  military   obedience 
and   the    strictness   of   military   discipline    oppose   to   all 
such  external  influences.'     The  ranks  of  the  Army  swarmed 
with  Irish  Catholics  who  had  done  splendid  service  in  the 
Peninsula.     Could  such  men  be  always  securely  trusted  to 
see   their   co-religionists  engaged  in  a  deadly  struggle  for 
equal  rights  of  citizenship,  and  not  feel  tempted  to  stand  by 


62  SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 

their  side?  Peel,  a  civilian,  thought  it  very  doubtful. 
Anglesey,  a  distinguished  and  experienced  soldier,  thought 
it  more  doubtful  still.  What  could  be  done  if  the  Catholics 
in  the  Army  were  not  to  be  trusted  to  stand  to  their  ranks  ? 

Nothing  can  show  the  true  genius  of  the  statesman  more 
clearly  than  the  manner  in  which  Peel  allowed  himself 
through  all  this  crisis  to  be  educated  by  the  teaching  of 
facts.  Some  of  his  words  which  we  have  quoted  show 
that  he  had  that  sympathetic — what  may  be  called  that 
dramatic — insight  which  enables  one  to  interpret  the  feel- 
ings and  the  minds  of  people  totally  unlike  himself,  and 
without  which  gift  there  can  be  no  real  statesmanship. 
The  words  in  which  Peel  speaks  of  the  O'Connell  contest 
having  '  inspired  the  serf  of  Clare  with  the  resolution  and  the 
energy  of  a  freeman,'  area  noble  evidence  of  Peel's  dramatic 
and  statesmanlike  faculty.  To  almost  all  around  him  the 
whole  agitation  was  a  mere  political  and  social  nuisance. 

A  contempt  for  O'Connell  was  a  part  of  the  faith  or 
the  Tory  politician  of  that  day.  Vesey  Fitzgerald  described 
O'Connell  as  a  person  so  degraded  that  a  man  of  honour 
could  not  even  call  him  to  account  for  his  calumnies. 
Even  Lord  Anglesey  constantly  writes  of  '  O'Connell  and 
his  gang.'  Lord  Anglesey  was,  indeed,  in  favour  of  Catholic 
Emancipation,  but  he  'abhorred  the  idea  of  truckling  to 
the  overbearing  Catholic  demagogues.'  Nobody  in  Peel's 
set,  but  only  Peel  himself,  seems  to  have  had  any  idea  that, 
after  all,  O'Connell  may  have  been  representing  a  great 
national  and  religious  cause.  '  Ireland  is  going  mad  '  was 
the  conviction  of  many  men  as  well  as  Vesey  Fitzgerald. 
Ireland  was  going  mad — that  was  the  easiest  solution  of  the 
whole  question.  But  it  was  not  a  solution  to  satisfy  Peel. 
Peel  was  too  great  a  statesman  to  believe  in  the  temporary 


THE   CLARE   ELECTION  6$ 

insanity  of  nations,  or  to  found  any  policy  on  the  theory 
that  a  people  could  be  composed  of  two  or  three  self-seeking 
scoundrels  and  some  millions  of  crazy  dupes.  While  other 
English  statesmen  were  railing  at  the  wicked  leaders  and  the 
Bedlamite  followers  in  the  Irish  movement,  Peel  was  asking 
himself  whether,  after  all,  there  might  not  be  something 
strong,  genuine,  and  deep-rooted  in  that  feeling  which,  to 
use  his  own  words— words  that  might  have  come  from  the 
lips  of  O'Connell  himself—'  had  inspired  the  serf  of  Clare 
with  the  resolution  and  the  energy  of  a  freeman.' 

The  end  could  not  be  far  off  when  such  thoughts  had 
begun  to  take  possession  of  the  mind  of  Robert  Peel.  The 
election  of  O'Connell  was  in  itself  a  peaceful  revolution. 


64  SIR   ROBERT4   PEEL 


CHAPTER   Vl 

CATHOLIC    EMANCIPATION    COMING 

Dismissal  of  Anglesey — Crisis  in  the  viceroyalty — The  King's  obstinacy 
— Peel  makes  up  his  mind  that  Catholic  Emancipation  must  come  at 
once — He  prevails  upon  Wellington. 

Not  many  men,  however,  either  in  England  or  in  Ireland, 
were  yet  inclined  to  believe  that  the  revolution  had  been 
accomplished,  or  that  it  would  be  peaceful.  O'Connell  was, 
indeed,  elected ;  but  there  remained  the  question  whether  he 
would  be  allowed  to  take  his  seat,  and  whether,  if  he  were  not 
allowed  to  take  his  seat,  his  expulsion  from  the  House  of 
Commons  would  not  be  the  signal  for  the  outbreak  of  a 
rebellion  in  Ireland.  The  almost  universal  opinion  among 
the  Irish  authorities  was,  that  if  O'Connell  were  expelled 
from  the  House  there  would  be  rebellion.  Such  was  the 
conviction  of  the  stout-hearted  Anglesey  himself.  He  was 
not  afraid  of  the  ultimate  results,  but  his  soul  sickened  at 
the  prospect  of  having  to  drench  the  country  with  blood  for 
the  sake  of  keeping  up  a  sectarian  ascendency  of  which  he 
disapproved,  and  putting  down  a  movement  of  which  he 
cordially  approved.  He  wrote  to  Peel  again  and  again,  stating 
his  views  very  clearly.  His  conviction  was  that  there  was 
but  one  way  out  of  the  trouble,  and  that  was  the  emancipa- 
tion of  the  Roman  Catholics.  The  winter  would  pass  over 
quietly — that  was  his  great  hope  and  comfort ;  and  then,  as. 


CATHOLIC   EMANCIPATION   COMING  65 

he  put  it,  'you  will  have  time  to  legislate  before  we  begin  to 
fight.'  Seize  your  opportunity,  then — such  was  the  effect 
of  his  urgency — legislate  in  the  proper  way,  emancipate 
the  Roman  Catholics,  and  we  shall  not  merely  not  have 
to  fight  in  Ireland  at  all,  but  we  shall  have  secured  the  loyal 
service  of  any  number  of  stout  Irishmen  to  fight  with  us 
the  battles  of  the  empire. 

The  advice  was  soldierly,  manly,  sensible.  So  far  as 
Peel  was  concerned  it  was,  however,  only  preaching  to  the 
converted.  But  Peel  saw  immense  difficulties  with  which 
the  mind  of  Lord  Anglesey  had  no  occasion  to  concern  itself. 
First,  there  would  be  the  Duke  of  Wellington  to  gain  over. 
That  Peel  knew  could  be  done.  He  knew  well  that  the  Duke 
would  accept  any  policy  which  Peel  could  show  him  was 
necessary  for  the  stability  of  the  empire  and  for  the  due 
carrying  on  of  the  King's  Government.  But  the  King 
himself?  How  was  he  to  be  won  over?  What  kind  of 
argument  could  prevail  with  that  narrow  and  obstinate 
mind  ?  The  King  had  of  late  been  talking  as  strongly 
and  as  fiercely  against  Catholic  Emancipation  as  he  had 
done  at  any  other  time.  Then,  how  to  prevail  over  the 
great  bulk  of  the  Tory  party,  who  were  pledged  to  the 
lips  to  the  doctrine  of  Protestant  ascendency?  We  can  well 
believe  that  Peel  passed  many  an  unquiet  hour.  He  did 
not  shrink  from  any  of  the  consequences  which  might 
follow  from  the  adoption  of  the  policy  which  he  was  now 
all  but  determined  to  adopt.  He  has  left  us  by  his  own 
hand  the  fullest  exposition  of  the  successive  workings  of 
his  mind ;  of  the  manner  in  which  conviction  grew  to 
take  firm  and  firmer  hold  upon  him.  There  is  not  in 
the  history  of  statesmanship  any  record  of  a  more  severe 
internal   struggle   brought   to  an  end   at   last   by  a  more 

F 


66  SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 

conscientious  and  self-denying  resolution.  Peel  made  up 
his  mind  to  go  in  for  Catholic  Emancipation.  'Being  done,' 
in  Shakespeare's  words,  '  there  is  no  pause  '  for  him. 

The   difficulties   with  which    Peel  had  to  deal  may  be 
illustrated  by  the  fate  of  the  Marquis  of  Anglesey.     In  the 
year  1828 — the  year  at  which  our  history  has  now  arrived 
— there  was  a  correspondence  between  Lord  Anglesey  and 
the   Roman  Catholic  Primate  of  Ireland,  in   which   Lord 
Anglesey  bluntly,  and  somewhat  incautiously,  declared  that 
he  did  not  agree  with  the  Duke  of  Wellington  on  the  subject 
of  Catholic  Emancipation.     This  came  to  the  ears  of  the 
King,  and,  as  Peel  somewhat  significantly  puts  the  matter, 
'  it  became  necessary  at  the  close  of  the  year  to  intimate  to 
Lord  Anglesey  that  we  felt  it  to  be  our  duty  to  advise  the  King 
to  place  the  Government  of  Ireland  in  other  hands.'     The 
King,  in  fact,  would  have  no  more  of  Lord  Anglesey;  and, 
of  course,   the  Duke  of  Wellington  did  not  approve  of  a 
Viceroy  who,  for  whatever  motive,  could  make  announce- 
ment, in  a  correspondence  which  was  sure  to  get  talked  of, 
that  some  of  the  Duke's  colleagues  were  opposed  to  the 
Duke's  policy  on  the  most  important  domestic  question  of 
the  day.     What  was  to  be  done?     Wellington  offered  the 
Viceroyalty  to  peer  after  peer ;  nobody  would  have  anything 
to  do  with  it.     The  position  was  too  precarious ;  the  con- 
ditions were  too  perplexed.    Each  man  who  in  turn  declined 
the  office  would  have  accepted  it  willingly  if  the  Govern- 
ment could  make  up  their  minds  to  attempt  a  settlement 
of  the  Catholic  question.      Even  at  the  very  close  of  the 
memorable  year,   1828,  the  mind  of  the  Government  was 
not  made  up.     P>ut  the  mind  of  Robert  Peel  was  fully  made 
up.     He  saw  his  way.     He  formed  a  decision  of  which  he 
was  fairly  entitled  to  say  '  that  it  was  wholly  at  variance 


CATHOLIC   EMANCIPATION    COMING  67 

with  that  which  the  regard  for  my  own  personal  interests  or 
private  feelings  would  have  dictated.'  Twenty  years  after 
Peel  wrote  the  declaration  that  the  decision  he  had  come  to 
in  1828  was  adopted  'with  a  clear  foresight  of  the  penalties 
to  which  the  course  I  resolved  to  take  would  expose  me  : 
the  rage  of  party,  the  rejection  by  the  University  of  Oxford, 
the  alienation  of  private  friends,  the  interruption  of  family 
affections.'     These  are  pathetic  and  manly  words. 

Peel  wrote  to  the  Duke  of  Wellington  telling  him  he 
had  made  up  his  mind  that  there  must  be  a  settlement  of 
the  Catholic  question,  and  that  the  settlement  should  be,  if 
possible,  a  complete  one.    Peel  told  the  Duke  that  he  had  not 
changed  his  views  as  to  the  danger  of  Catholic  Emancipa- 
tion— that  he  still  disliked  and  dreaded  it,  but  that  the  time 
had  come  when  a   choice  had  to  be  made  between  one 
danger  and  another,  and  that  the  danger  of  resisting  Catholic 
Emancipation   seemed   to   him    now    far   greater  than  the 
danger  of  conceding   it.     In   fact,   he  gave   the  Duke   the 
assurance  of  his  firm  conviction  that  the  Government  ought 
at  once  to  take  up  the   subject,  and  bring  in  a  complete 
measure   of  Catholic   relief.     But    Peel    was   decidedly  of 
opinion  that  he  himself  ought  to  resign  office,  and  support 
the  Government  from  the  outside.    He  was  especially  strong 
in  his  opinion  that  he  ought  not  to  be  the  man  to  introduce 
the  measure.     He  foresaw  the  strong  feelings  of  anger  which 
would  be  aroused  among  the  more  extreme  Tories  when  it 
became  known  that  he,  on  whom  they  had  relied  as  their 
chief  rampart  against  Catholic  Emancipation,  had  become 
the  bridge  across  which  the  measure  was  to  pass.     He  was 
honestly  convinced  that  it  would  smooth  over  some  diffi- 
culties for  the  Government  if  the  measure  were  to  be  intro- 
duced by  some   man  around  whom  so  many  feelings  of 

F  2 


68  SIR   ROBERT    PEEL 

bitterness  would  not  centre.  Then,  again,  there  would 
have  to  be  negotiations  with  the  Catholics,  there  would 
have  to  be  compromise,  there  must  be  give  and  take  \  and 
Peel  thought  that  all  such  arrangements  could  be  more 
satisfactorily  made  if  the  measure  were  in  the  hands  of  a 
man  who  had  never  been  so  deeply  committed  to  an  anti- 
Catholic  policy  as  he  had  been  during  all  his  previous 
political  career. 

Such  were  the  opinions  which  Peel  laid  before  the 
Duke  in  the  August  of  1828.  Before  the  closing  days  of 
that  year,  the  Marquis  of  Anglesey  had  been  turned  out 
of  office  in  Dublin,  and  had  become  intensely  popular  with 
the  Irish  people ;  whilst  the  Viceroyalty  was  for  the  time 
going  a-begging  ;  and,  as  the  Duke  of  Wellington  himself 
put  it  in  a  letter  to  Peel  dated  December  30,  1828,  'the 
whole  question  turns  upon  the  Roman  Catholic  question.' 
There,  at  the  very  close  of  the  year,  the  Prime  Minister  had 
still  no  policy  to  offer.  Why  did  not  Peel  press  his  own 
policy  on  him  ?  Peel  did  press  his  own  policy  on  the  Duke  ; 
but,  in  Peel's  own  words,  '  the  chief  difficulty  was  with  the 
King.'  The  King  would  not  yet  listen  to  reason.  Even  in 
January,  1829,  the  King  would  not  consent  that  the  subject 
should  be  taken  into  consideration  by  his  Ministers.  George 
had  had  several  interviews  with  the  Duke  of  Wellington  in 
the  autumn  and  early  winter  of  1828,  and  the  very  mention 
of  the  subject  made  him  hot  and  angry.  In  the  spring  of 
1829  the  King  kept  on  talking  to  Lord  Eldon  with  great 
bitterness,  declaring  that  he  was  miserable  and  wretched,  and 
that  if  he  were  ever  driven  to  give  his  assent  to  a  Roman 
Catholic  Relief  Bill,  he  would  go  to  Hanover,  and  return  to 
England  no  more,  and  that  the  English  people  might,  if 
they  liked,  get  a  Catholic  king  in  the  Duke  of  Clarence. 


CATHOLIC   EMANCIPATION    COMING  69 

The  Duke  of  Clarence  had  just  been  removed  from  the 
position  of  Lord  High  Admiral  because  of  his  high-handed 
action  with  regard  to  another  officer.  That  fact,  and  the 
Duke  of  Clarence's  open  advocacy  of  the  Catholic  claims, 
suggested  to  the  King  the  taunt  which  thus  offered  him  as 
a  Catholic  sovereign  to  the  English  people. 

The  Duke  of  Wellington  tried  to  get  the  Archbishop  or 
Canterbury,  the  Bishop  of  London,  and  the  Bishop  of 
Durham,  to  understand  that  the  time  had  come  when 
some  consideration  of  the  Catholic  question  was  not  only 
necessary,  but  even  inevitable.  He  was  in  hope  that,  if  he 
could  get  them  to  listen  to  reason,  their  example  might  have 
some  influence  over  the  King.  The  Duke  had  two  inter- 
views with  the  prelates  ;  and  the  prelates  considered  the 
subject,  and  informed  him  that  nothing  could  induce  them 
to  relax  in  their  opposition  to  any  measure  for  the  relief  of 
the  Catholics. 

The  situation  had  become  one  of  intense  anxiety.  The 
declared  opinion  of  the  King,  of  the  House  of  Lords,  and 
of  the  State  Church,  were  all  against  Catholic  Emancipation. 
Peel  had  made  up  his  mind  that  it  must  come,  and  come 
quickly.  He  would  not  give  way.  He  kept  on  pressing 
the  Duke  of  Wellington  with  his  advice.  The  Duke 
regarded  Peel's  advice  with  the  utmost  deference,  and  began 
to  have  no  doubt  whatever  that  Peel  was  right ;  but  he  did 
not  see  how  he  could  move  the  King.  At  all  events,  the 
Duke  was  clear  that  he  would  have  no  chance  whatever  of 
moving  either  the  King  or  the  bishops  if  Peel  did  not 
remain  in  office.  On  this  point  he  urged  Peel  so  strongly 
that  l'eel  consented  to  put  aside  his  own  personal  feelings 
and  even  his  private  impressions  with  regard  to  the  ex- 
pediency of  the  step,  and  to  consent  to  remain  in  office. 


70  SIR    ROBERT   PEEL 

The  Duke  put  it  to  him  in  such  a  light  that  it  would  have 
seemed  like  the  desertion  of  some  dear  comrade  in  a 
moment  of  extremest  danger  if  he  had  not  consented  to 
remain  in  the  Cabinet  to  the  last. 

Why,  it  may  be  asked,  did  not  the  Duke  and  Peel,  and 
their   colleagues  who   thought  with  them,  lay  their  views 
before    the    King,   and  at   once  resign  their  offices   if  the 
King  would  not  listen  to  their  advice  ?     There  were  some 
good  reasons  to  influence  practical  statesmen.    Peel  was  very 
anxious  to  avoid  any  course  of  action  which  might  drive 
George  IV.  into  some  public  declaration  against  a  Catholic 
Relief  Bill,  from  which  he  might  afterwards  plead  that  he 
could  not  in  conscience  recede.      Peel  feared  that  if  the 
Duke  and  he  pressed  their  advice  peremptorily  on  the  King, 
the  King  would  regard  it  as  though  a  pistol  were  put  to  his 
head,  and  would  blaze  out  in  some  vehement  vow  of  deter- 
mination never  to  give  way.     Peel  felt  convinced,  too,  that 
if  the   Duke  of  Wellington  could  not  obtain   the  King's 
consent,  no  other  living  man  would  have  the  slightest  chance 
of  obtaining   it.      He   himself    thought   of  Earl   Grey,    a 
statesman  of  the  highest  character,  of  great  abilities,  and 
always  an  avowed  and  steadfast  friend  of  Catholic  Emanci- 
pation.    But  Peel  saw  clearly  that  it  would  be  utterly  out 
of  the  question  to  suppose  that  the  King  would  yield  to 
Lord  Grey,  whom  he  personally  disliked  and  dreaded,  what 
he  would  not  yield  to  the  Duke  of  Wellington.     There  was 
nothing  for  it,  that  Peel  could  see,  but  for  the  Duke  to 
remain  at  the  head  of  the  Administration  ;  for  him  to  stand  by 
the  Duke's  side,  and  for  both  to  steer  the  best  course  they 
could.    The  one  great  object  present  to  Peel's  practical  mind 
all  through  was  the  carrying  of  a  Catholic  Relief  Bill.    There 
was  a  famous  saying  of  O'Connell,  when  at  the  height  of  his 


CATHOLIC    EMANCIPATION    COMING  /I 

success  as  a  brilliant  advocate,  that  a  great  speech  was  a 
good  thing,  but  that  the  verdict  was  the  thing.  Peel's 
Parliamentary  policy  was  always  governed  by  a  somewhat 
similar  principle.  The  carrying  of  the  measure  was  the 
thing  with  him.  He  would  have  been  only  too  glad  to 
leave  to  Lord  Grey  and  the  Whigs  all  the  honour  of  carry- 
ing the  measure,  but  he  felt  sure  they  could  not  carry  it, 
and  his  one  great  purpose  now  was  to  have  it  carried. 

Why  was  the  King  thus  set  against  the  relief  of  the 
Catholics  ?  In  his  earlier  days  he  had  been  in  the  constant 
companionship  of  the  men  who  were  the  most  earnest  and 
energetic  friends  of  liberty  and  of  religious  equality.  Until 
a  comparatively  recent  period  he  had  been  supposed  to 
be  in  favour  of  Catholic  Emancipation.  Some  writers  have 
suggested  that,  when  he  broke  from  the  Whigs  on  the  ques- 
tion of  the  French  Revolution,  he  broke  from  them  on  all 
questions  that  concerned  the  government  of  peoples,  and 
religious  equality  became  in  his  eyes  something  as  odious  as 
political  democracy.  But  it  is  certain  that  long  after  that 
time,  George,  while  Regent,  was  understood  by  those  who 
came  nearest  to  him  to  be  still  in  favour  of  doing  justice 
to  the  Catholics. 

Why  had  he  suddenly  become  so  bitterly  and  angrily 
opposed  to  their  claims  ?  Lord  Dalling,  in  his  '  Historical 
Sketch'  of  Sir  Robert  Peel,  gives  it  as  his  opinion  that  the 
change  came  altogether  out  of  the  dislike  which  George, 
when  Regent,  had  begun  to  feel  for  the  proud,  unbending 
ways  of  Lord  Grey.  George  had  been  used  to  adulation, 
to  servile  obedience.  Even  so  great  and  so  true-hearted  a 
man  as  Fox  could  condescend  to  humour  him  and  compro- 
mise for  him.  Lord  Grey  would  do  nothing  of  the  kind. 
He  would  ii-'  lowi  r  the  proud  crest  of  his  political  integrity 


72  SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 

and  consistency  to  gratify  any  prince.  He  was  a  man  who 
would  not  flatter  Neptune  for  his  trident,  or  Jove  for  his 
power  to  thunder.  George  hated  him,  and  soon  came  to 
include  in  his  hatred  for  Lord  Grey  the  cause  of  which 
he  was  the  advocate,  and  the  members  of  the  religious 
denomination  whom  he  would  have  emancipated.  Lord 
Dalling's  explanation  is  apt  and  of  good  seeming.  George 
had  a  narrow,  petty,  selfish  mind,  incapable  of  high,  impartial 
thought.  He  found  that  the  policy  of  Grey  was  winning  in 
spite  of  him,  and  he  hated  the  policy  all  the  more  on  that 
account.  It  is  probable  that  there  is  no  other  explanation. 
We  cannot  suppose  George  IV.  to  be  suddenly  seized  by 
any  passion  of  religious  bigotry,  such  as  that  which  always 
held  genuine  hold  over  the  mind  of  George  III. 

The  Duke  of  Wellington  came  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  only  chance  of  carrying  the  policy  on  which  Peel  had 
now  set  his  heart,  and  to  which,  because  of  him,  Wellington 
himself  had  given  his  assent,  was  to  obtain  from  the  King 
permission  to  consider  in  the  Cabinet  the  whole  question  of 
Ireland,  including  in  it,  of  course,  the  question  of  Catholic 
relief.  Peel  drew  up  an  elaborate  Memorandum  on  the 
state  of  Ireland,  chiefly  with  regard  to  the  Catholic  question, 
in  which  he  set  forth  clearly  and  elaborately  his  reasons  for 
believing  that  the  time  had  come  when  the  settlement  of 
that  question  was  inevitable.  The  Memorandum,  which 
bore  date  January  12,  1829,  was  submitted  to  the  King  by 
the  Duke  of  Wellington.  The  day  after  the  King  had 
received  it,  those  of  his  Ministers  who  had,  up  to  that  time, 
voted  uniformly  against  the  Catholic  claims,  waited  separately 
on  George,  and  each  expressed  a  general  approval  of  the 
opinions  set  out  in  the  Memorandum.  The  Ministers  who 
waited  on  the  King  were  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  the  Lord 


CATHOLIC   EMANCIPATION   COMING  73 

Chancellor  (Lyndhurst),  Lord  Bathurst,  Mr.  Goulburn,  Mr. 
Hemes,  and  Peel  himself.  The  Duke  of  Wellington,  when 
once  he  had  made  up  his  mind  to  any  course  of  action,  was 
the  very  man  to  prevail  over  such  a  sovereign  as  George  IV. 
The  Duke  carried  into  civil  life  the  temper  and  the  policy 
of  the  commander-in-chief.  He  saw  what  was  to  be  done, 
and  he  was  determined  that  everybody  should  do  it.  He 
had  unbounded  respect,  veneration,  homage  for  the  office 
and  the  person  of  the  Sovereign ;  but  when  he  was  put  in 
command  of  the  hour,  he  expected  that  the  Sovereign  would 
be  guided  by  his  directions — would  obey  his  word  of  com- 
mand. If  George  IV.  had  really — as  in  his  cups  he  used 
to  say  he  had — served  at  Waterloo,  and  served  under  the 
Duke  of  Wellington,  the  Duke,  with  all  his  reverence  for 
his  future  Sovereign,  would  have  taken  good  care  that  the 
future  Sovereign  should  obey  the  orders  of  the  Commander- 
in-Chief.  Wellington  appears  to  have  argued  it  out  much 
in  this  way  :  '  Peel  knows  all  about  it ;  the  King  does  not,  and 
I  do  not.  Peel  is  the  man  to  advise ;  he  has  told  me  what 
to  do,  and  I  am  going  to  do  it.  It  is  for  the  King's  own 
good — Peel  says  so,  and  he  knows.  I  have  got  to  make 
the  King  take  Peel's  advice,  and  he  shall  take  it.' 

The  result  of  the  pressure  brought  to  bear  by  the  Duke 
was  that  the  King  consented  to  allow  the  Cabinet  to  con- 
sider the  whole  state  of  Ireland,  and  submit  their  views  to 
him.  The  King  made,  however,  the  proviso  that  he  was 
in  no  degree  pledged  to  the  adoption  of  the  views  of  his 
Government,  'even  if  it  should  concur  unanimously  in  the 
course  to  be  pursued.'  In  the  memorandum  made  by 
Peel  of  the  King's  decision,  not  a  word  is  said  about  the 
Catholic  question.  Probably  George  was  induced  to  give 
his  curiously-qualified  consent  by  the  consideration  that  he 


74  >SIK   ROBERT    PEEL 

was  not  compelled  to  make  specific  mention  of  the  hateful 
Catholic  question.  The  English  people  were  some  lengths 
away  from  constitutional  government  at  that  time.  The 
proviso  of  the  sovereign  would  he  as  impossible  in  the 
England  of  our  day  as  the  sending  of  a  bowstring  to  the 
Minister  of  whose  advice  the  sovereign  did  not  approve. 

By  this  time  the  17th  of  January  had  arrived,  and  Parlia- 
ment was  to  open  on  the  6th  of  February.  The  interval  was 
but  short  for  the  preparation  of  the  measures  which  would 
have  to  be  submitted  to  both  Houses ;  and,  of  course,  it  was 
absolutely  necessary  that  the  Speech  from  the  Throne  should 
contain  a  general  indication  of  the  policy  of  the  Government 
with  regard  to  Ireland.  The  construction  of  these  measures 
would  have  to  be  the  business  of  Peel,  and  their  presenta- 
tion to  the  House  of  Commons,  and  their  advocacy  there, 
would  be  in  his  hands.  Peel  determined  that  the  measure 
for  the  relief  of  the  Catholics  should  be  preceded  by  a  Bill 
to  suppress  the  Catholic  Association,  and  other  such  asso- 
ciations, in  Ireland.  He  also  determined  to  accompany  the 
measure  of  relief  by  a  measure  to  alter  the  elective  system 
in  Ireland,  by  getting  rid  of  the  forty-shilling  freeholder,  who 
had  been  the  main  support  of  O'Connell  in  Clare.  Finally, 
he  made  up  his  mind  that  the  Catholic  relief  measure  must 
not  be  in  any  sense  retrospective,  and  that  O'Connell, 
although  elected  for  Clare,  must  not  be  enabled  by  the  Bill 
to  take  his  seat  without  being  put  to  the  trouble  of  a  second 
election.  In  all  these  determinations — except,  of  course, 
that  which  related  to  the  Catholic  Relief  Bill — Peel  seems 
to  have  made  a  grievous  mistake.  It  was  a  mistake  to  pre- 
cede or  to  accompany  the  measure  of  relief  by  any  legisla- 
tion directed  against  the  movement  without  whose  impulse 
Peel  himself  would  never  have  acknowledged  the  expediency 


CATHOLIC    EMANCIPATION   COMING  75 

of  conceding  the  Catholic  claims.  It  was  a  mistake  to  mix 
up  the  measure  of  Catholic  relief  with  a  sort  of  emascula- 
tion of  the  Irish  franchise.  It  was  a  mistake  not  to  open 
the  doors  of  the  House  of  Commons  freely,  generously,  and 
at  once,  to  O'Connell,  seeing  that  he  had  been  fairly 
elected,  and  that  he  was  perfectly  certain  to  be  elected 
again.  The  Catholic  Relief  Bill  ought  to  have  been  granted 
in  the  most  generous  spirit.  It  was  a  measure  of  concilia- 
tion and  of  confidence ;  it  ought  not  to  have  been  accom- 
panied by  enactments  which  said  to  the  Irish  people — 
'  You  shall  not  do  this  sort  of  thing  again  '  ;  and  said  to  the 
Irish  leader — 'Yes,  you  must  come  into  Parliament,  we  can't 
help  that ;  but  at  all  events  we  shall  keep  you  out  as  long, 
and  obstruct  your  entrance  as  much,  as  the  literal  interpre- 
tation of  the  law  puts  it  in  our  power  to  do.' 


y6  SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 


CHAPTER   VII 

CATHOLIC    EMANCIPATION    COME 

The  King  struggles  and  wriggles,  and  yields  at  last — Peel  resigns  his 
seat  for  Oxford  University  ;  stands  again  and  is  defeated — Pie  is 
elected  for  Westbury — The  Catholic  Emancipation  Bill  passes. 

Peel  has  himself  given  us  some  hints  that  these  additional 
measures  were  not  proposed  out  of  the  narrow  and  un- 
generous spirit  which  they  would  seem  to  indicate.  He 
appears  to  have  thought  that  something  of  the  kind  was 
necessary  in  order  to  satisfy  the  temper  of  the  King  and  the 
prejudices  of  the  bishops  and  the  House  of  Lords.  It  was 
necessary,  also,  he  apparently  thought,  that  measures  should 
be  introduced  which  would  prove  that  the  Cabinet  had 
been  dealing  with  the  whole  state  of  Ireland,  and  not  merely 
with  the  question  of  Catholic  Emancipation.  Any  affront  to 
O'Connell,  any  obstacle  put  in  the  way  of  his  entering  the 
House  of  Commons,  would  humour  the  King,  and  gratify 
the  Lords  and  the  bishops,  and  a  large  number  of  all  classes 
in  England. 

The  King  gave  what  Peel  calls  a  reluctant  assent  to  the 
proposals  of  the  Cabinet.  It  was,  indeed,  a  very  reluctant 
assent.  There  was  some  angry  controversy,  and  there  were 
moments  when  all  hope  of  carrying  on  the  Government 
under  Wellington  and  Peel  seemed  to  have  come  to  an  end, 
But  George  really  had  no  one  to  turn  to  if  he  were  abandoned. 


CATHOLIC   EMANCIPATION    COME  ?7 

by  Wellington  and  Peel,  and  at  last  he  gave  his  unwilling, 
extorted,  and  ungracious  assent.  He  submitted  to  Peel, 
and  detested  him  for  ever  after.  Peel  now  was  as  obnoxious 
to  him  as  Lord  Grey  had  been.  To  Peel,  however,  the 
House  of  Commons  was  far  more  than  the  King  ;  the 
country,  still  more  than  the  House  of  Commons.  He 
was  not  cast  in  the  mould  that  makes  men  the  favourite 
of  sovereigns.  There  are  some  fine  lines  in  Webster's 
'  Duchess  of  Malfi  '  which  tell  us — 

An  honest  statesman  to  a  prince 
Is  like  a  cedar  planted  by  a  spring  : . 
The  spring  bathes  the  tree's  root  ;  the  grateful  tree 
Rewards  it  with  his  shadow. 

Such,  however,  were  not  exactly  the  relations  which 
existed  between  George  IV.  and  the  honest  statesman  who 
was  his  Minister. 

Parliament  opened  on  the  6th  of  February,  1829.  The 
Speech  from  the  Throne  informed  the  Houses  that  the  state 
of  Ireland  had  been  the  object  of  his  Majesty's  continued 
solicitude.  Then  it  went  on,  first  to  deplore  the  existence 
in  Ireland  of  an  Association  '  which  is  dangerous  to  the 
public  peace,  and  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  the  Consti- 
tution :  whirls  keeps  alive  discord  and  ill-will  among  his 
Majesty's  subjects,  and  which  must,  if  permitted  to  continue, 
effectually  obstruct  every  effort  permanently  to  improve  the 
condition  of  Ireland.'  The  King  asked  for  powers  to  deal 
with  that  and  other  such  associations,  and  then  recommended 
that,  when  that  had  been  done,  Parliament  should  take  into 
its  deliberate  consideration  '  the  whole  condition  of  Ireland,' 
and  should  '  review  the  laws  which  impose  civil  disabilities  on 
his  Majesty's  Roman  Catholic  subjects.'  'You  will  consider,' 
the  Speech  went  on  to  say,  'whether  the  removal  of  those 


;«S  SIR   ROBERT    PEEL 

disabilities  can  be  effected  consistently  with  the  full  and 
permanent  security  of  our  Establishments  in  Church  and 
State,  with  the  maintenance  of  the  Reformed  religion  esta- 
blished by  law,  and  of  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  bishops 
and  clergy  of  his  realm,  and  of  the  Churches  committed 
to  their  charge.'  These  institutions  the  King  declared  it  to 
be  his  duty  and  his  determination  to  preserve  inviolate. 
The  Bill  for  the  suppression  of  the  Catholic  Association  was 
soon  passed  into  law.  The  measure  of  Catholic  Emancipa- 
tion would  soon  have  to  be  brought  forward. 

Peel,  meantime,  felt  that  he  was  bound  in  conscience 
and  honour  not  to  continue  in  the  representation  of  Oxford 
University  without  giving  the  University  a  chance  of  pro- 
nouncing upon  his  recent  course  of  action.  He  had  been 
chosen  by  the  University  as  the  one  great  champion  of  the 
Church  in  the  House  of  Commons.  He  had  been  preferred 
to  Canning  on  the  express  ground  that  Canning  was  in 
favour  of  Catholic  Emancipation,  while  Peel  was  against  it. 
Peel  had  now  completely  changed  his  policy,  and  become 
the  leader  of  the  movement  for  Catholic  Emancipation. 
He  had  not  changed  his  opinions,  but  he  had  changed  his 
policy.  It  is  necessary  to  understand  this  fact  quite  clearly 
if  we  would  do  justice  either  to  Peel  himself,  or  to  those 
who  believed  that  he  had  deserted  and  betrayed  them. 
We  must  look  the  fact  plainly  in  the  face.  Peel  was  still 
opposed  to  the  principle  of  Catholic  Emancipation.  He 
was  a  firm  believer  in  the  principle  of  the  Protestant  State 
Church.  He  did  not  believe  the  Catholics  could  be  admitted 
to  civil  equality  without  danger  to  the  position  of  the 
Protestant  State  Church.  If  he  could  have  shaped  the 
political  conditions  of  the  empire  to  suit  his  own  convictions 
and  wishes,  he  would  never  have  proposed,  or  supported,  or 


CATHOLIC    EMANCIPATION    COME  79 

failed  to  oppose,  Catholic  Emancipation.  As  he  had  thought 
on  that  question  before,  so  he  still  thought  of  it  now  that 
he  was  going  to  bring  in  a  Bill  to  emancipate  the  Catholics. 
The  difference  between  Peel  and  those  who  soon  came  to 
denounce  him  was  that  he  was  a  practical  statesman,  and 
they  were  not  practical  statesmen,  or  statesmen  of  any 
order.  Peel  was  in  the  condition  of  a  surgeon  who  for  a 
long  time  believes  a  certain  perilous  operation  unneces- 
sary, and  refuses  to  authorise  it  ;  then  suddenly  finds  that 
it  is  inevitable  unless  far  worse  danger  is  to  be  encountered ; 
and  not  only  sanctions  the  operation,  but,  believing  he  can 
accomplish  it  better  than  anyone  else,  offers  to  undertake 
the  operation  himself.  There  would  be  nothing  inconsistent 
in  such  conduct.  No  one  would  think  of  saying  to  the 
surgeon  :  '  What  an  inconsistent  man  you  are  !  Last  week 
you  were  opposed  to  this  operation — now  you  not  only 
sanction  it,  but  you  offer  to  perform  it  yourself.' 

Still,  it  was  certain  that  Peel  had  utterly  changed  his 
policy  since  the  time  of  his  election  as  representative  of 
Oxford,  and  he  felt  bound  to  give  Oxford  a  chance  of  pro- 
nouncing on  his  conduct.  He  therefore  resigned  his  seat.  He 
was  opposed  by  Sir  Robert  Inglis,  an  implacable  Tory,  and 
was  defeated  by  146  votes.  A  vacancy,  however,  occurring 
shortly  after  at  Westbury,  Peel  offered  himself  as  a  candidate. 

Sir  Lawrence  Peel,  in  the  volume  to  which  reference 
has  been  made  more  than  once  already,  gives  it  as  his 
opinion  that  Robert  Peel  made  two  mistakes  in  the  course 
of  his  career.  The  first  was  when  he  resigned  his  seat  for 
the  University ;  the  last  will  have  to  be  dealt  with  later  on 
in  this  volume.  Why  does  Lawrence  Peel  think  his  great 
relative  was  wrong  in  resigning  his  seat  for  the  University? 
Because,  he  says,  it  was  '  a  virtual  concession  that  a  member 


86  SIR    ROBERT   PEEL 

of  Parliament  is  a  delegate.'  It  is  strange  that  a  man  of 
intelligence  like  Sir  Lawrence  Peel  should  have  allowed  his 
mind  to  be  muddled  by  mere  axioms  and  phrases.  Even 
the  precision  of  the  Greek  language  would  seek  in  vain  to 
define  the  exact  difference,  at  all  times,  between  the  duties 
of  a  delegate  and  a  Parliamentary  representative.  We  all 
feel  and  know  that  a  Parliamentary  representative  cannot 
submit  at  all  times  to  be  a  mere  mouthpiece  of  those  who 
send  him  to  Parliament.  There  are  emergencies  when  he 
must  act  on  his  own  inspiration,  whether  he  likes  it  or  not ; 
there  are  occasions  when  even  the  most  modest  man  may 
feel  that  he  understands  the  true  interests  of  his  constituents 
better,  at  the  moment,  than  they  do  themselves.  It  may 
be  his  right  and  his  duty  to  stand  between  them  and  some 
sudden  impulse  of  passion  or  prejudice,  some  mistake 
arising  out  of  ignorance  or  misrepresentation.  But  a 
member  of  Parliament  must  always  have  something  of 
the  character  of  a  delegate.  He  must  in  general  represent 
the  opinions  of  those  who  sent  him  into  the  House,  and 
so  far  he  must  be  a  delegate.  Even  in  the  days  of  the 
pocket-boroughs,  the  man  who  sat  for  one  of  these  con- 
stituencies had  to  be  sometimes  the  delegate  of  the  patron 
who  had  sent  him  into  the  House  of  Commons.  The  only 
English  member  of  Parliament  known  to  fame  who  could 
claim  for  himself  the  position  of  one  absolutely  free  from 
any  of  the  duties  of  the  delegate,  was  the  member  for 
Ludgershall,  in  Wiltshire,  who,  during  the  great  debates  on 
Lord  Grey's  Reform  Bill,  announced  himself  to  the  House 
as  the  owner  of  Ludgershall,  the  constituency  of  Ludgers- 
hall, and  the  member  for  Ludgershall,  and  declared  that 
in  all  these  three  capacities  he  was  in  favour  of  the 
disfranchisement  of  Ludgershall.     It  would  be  absurd  to 


CATHOLIC   EMANCIPATION    COME  8 1 

suppose  that  any  constituency  could  tolerate  a  man  who, 
having  been  elected  to  advocate  certain  political  principles, 
suddenly  began  to  advocate  the  very  opposite  principles. 
It  would  be  absurd  for  such  a  man  to  wrap  himself  up 
in  his  heroic  virtue,  and  declare  that  he  had  suddenly 
been  visited  by  an  inspiration  which  made  him  much 
wiser  than  his  constituents,  and  that  he  proposed  to  act 
upon  that  inspiration  though  the  sky  should  fall.  His 
constituents  would  begin  in  all  sober  seriousness  to  think 
that  Colney  Hatch  rather  than  Westminster  Palace  was  the 
proper  place  for  a  man  with  so  absorbing  a  self-sufficiency. 
No  question  of  personal  dignity  is  involved,  no  question 
even  of  superior  or  inferior  wisdom.  It  is  like  the  case  of 
a  tutor  who,  being  employed  to  teach  a  pupil  Latin,  and 
Latin  only,  persists  in  teaching  him  nothing  but  Greek. 
It  is  of  no  use  the  teacher  protesting  that  he  is  convinced 
of  the  superiority  of  Greek  to  Latin  as  a  language.  The 
simple  fact  is  that,  having  been  engaged  to  teach  one 
tongue,  he  has  taught  another.  In  truth,  the  only  possible 
way  of  preventing  the  position  of  a  member  of  Parliament 
from  becoming  that  of  a  mere  delegate,  is  the  adoption 
of  the  course  which  Robert  Peel  so  honourably  adopted. 
Once  make  it  known  that  the  moment  a  man  is  elected 
for  a  constituency  he  is  free  to  do  exactly  as  he  likes,  without 
any  deference  to  the  opinions  of  the  constituency — once 
set  up  that  principle,  and  the  English  people  would  have  to 
pass  some  Act  to  declare  a  member  of  Parliament  a  mere 
delegate.  The  unwritten  law  now  certainly  is,  that  when  a 
man  finds,  from  whatever  reason,  no  matter  how  honourable 
and  conscientious,  he  has  to  take  some  step  of  which  his  con- 
stituents greatly  disapprove,  he  ought  either  to  resign  his  seat 
altogether  and  absolutely,  or  he  ought  to  rcs;go  it  and,  by 

G 


82  SIR    ROBERT   REEL 

offering  himself  for  re-election,  allow  his  constituents  to  hear 
his  vindication  of  himself  and  pronounce  upon  it.  This 
understanding,  and  this  alone,  rescues  the  position  of  a 
member  of  Parliament  from  being  that  of  a  mere  delegate, 
a  mere  mouthpiece  of  the  opinions  of  his  constituents. 

In  Robert  Peel's  case  these  general  considerations  were 
fortified  by  other  and  more  personal  considerations.  Peel 
had  been  elected  by  the  University  on  the  one  especial 
ground  that  he  was  the  champion  of  the  ascendency  of  the 
Established  Church  and  the  opponent  of  Catholic  Emanci- 
pation. No  one  can  doubt  for  a  moment  that,  if  Canning 
had  been  also  an  opponent  of  Catholic  Emancipation, 
he,  and  not  Peel,  would  have  been  elected.  Canning 
was  then  by  far  the  greatest  statesman  and  the  greatest 
Parliamentary  orator  living.  Peel  was  only  beginning  his 
career.  Even  if  Canning  had  simply  had  an  open  mind 
as  regards  Catholic  Emancipation,  and  had  not  freely  and 
chivalrously  committed  himself  to  its  advocacy,  Peel  would 
have  had  little  chance  against  him  in  the  University  elec- 
tion. Peel  felt  all  this.  Peel  had  in  some  ways  a  nature 
as  sensitive  as  Canning's  own.  It  would  be  impossible  for 
such  a  man  to  go  on  professing  to  speak  for  the  University 
of  Oxford,  while  he  well  knew  that,  on  the  great,  burning 
question  of  the  day,  he  was  taking  a  course  in  diametrical 
contradiction  to  its  judgment  and  its  wishes.  No  axiom 
about  delegates  and  representatives  would  have  brought 
him  one  moment's  peace  of  mind.  In  this,  as  in  all  things 
else,  Peel  looked  to  realities,  and  was  not  in  the  least 
governed  by  formulas.  He  saw  two  facts  clear  before  him  : 
he  saw  that  the  University  had  sent  him  into  the  House 
of  Commons  to  oppose  Catholic  Emancipation,  and  that 
he  now  felt  bound  to  propose  Catholic  Emancipation.     It 


CATHOLIC    EMANCIPATION    COME  8$ 

was  not  a  question  of  axiom  with  him  ;  it  was  a  question 
of  duty,  of  feeling,  and  of  honour.  He  felt  bound  to  give 
the  University  the  opportunity,  which  was  its  due,  of  saying 
whether  it  desired  that  he  should  sit  in  Parliament  as  its 
representative  any  longer.  In  doing  so,  he  not  only  vindi- 
cated his  own  honour,  and  did  his  duty  to  his  constituents, 
but  he  took,  as  has  been  already  said,  the  only  course 
which  can  save  the  position  of  a  member  of  Parliament 
from  becoming  that  of  a  mere  delegate. 

Peel,  as  has  been  said,  offered  himself  as  a  candidate 
for  Westbury,  and  was  elected— that  is  say,  he  was  forced 
on  Westbury  by  the  patron  of  the  borough ;  and  even  the 
patron  had,  according  to  Peel  himself,  considerable  difficulty 
in  compelling  the  place  to  accept  him.  Poor  Sir  Manasseh 
Lopes,  the  patron,  was  pelted  by  some  of  the  Westbury 
people  during  the  performances  on  the  hustings.  Peel  was 
returned  unopposed,  in  the  electioneering  sense,  for  no 
Protestant  candidate  turned  up  in  time  to  oppose  him. 
Almost  immediately  after  the  official  declaration  of  the 
return  had  been  announced,  a  Protestant  candidate  in  a 
chaise-and-four  came  dashing  in  from  London.  '  If  he  had 
entered  the  town  a  few  hours  earlier,'  Peel  quietly  remarks 
'  it  is  highly  probable  that  I  should  have  fared  no  better 
at  Westbury  than  I  had  done  at  Oxford.'  The  Protestant 
Ivanhoe  had  come  just  too  late  to  rescue  the  Westbury 
Rebecca. 

The  difficulties  with  the  King  were  not  yet  over.  On 
Tuesday,  March  3,  1829,  Peel  gave  formal  notice  in  the 
House  of  Commons  that  he  would  on  the  following  Thurs- 
day (the  5th)  call  attention  to  the  whole  subject  of  the 
removal  of  the  civil  disabilities  imposed  on  Roman  Catholics. 
That  evening,  after  Peel  had  given  his  notice,  a  summons 


84  SIR    ROBERT    PEEL 

came  for  him,  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  and  the  Lord 
Chancellor,  to  attend  the  King  early  next  day — the  day  just 
preceding  that  on  which  reel  was  to  make  his  statement. 
The  King  then  announced  that  he  could  not  have  any 
alteration  in  the  Oath  of  Supremacy.  The  three  Ministers 
in  turn  explained  to  the  King  that  without  some  alteration 
in  the  Oath  of  Supremacy  there  could  be  no  Catholic  Relief 
Bill,  because  the  Oath  of  Supremacy  contained  statements 
which  no  Catholic  could  possibly  accept.  The  King  did 
not  care ;  he  would  not  have  the  Oath  of  Supremacy  altered, 
would  not  have  one  jot  or  tittle  of  it  altered,  and  would 
withdraw  his  consent  to  the  whole  Bill.  The  Ministers 
were  firm.  Then  the  King  asked  them  all  what  they  pro- 
posed to  do.  They  all  said  that  they  proposed  to  ask  for 
permission  to  announce  to  the  two  Houses  of  Parliament 
next  day  that  they  no  longer  held  office  under  his  Majesty. 
The  King  seemed  a  little  taken  aback,  but  rallied,  and  said 
he  could  not  blame  them,  but  he  must  hold  to  his  decision. 
The  interview  lasted  five  hours.  Then  'the  King  took 
leave  of  us  with  great  composure  and  great  kindness,  gave 
to  each  of  us  a  salute  on  each  cheek,  and  accepted  our 
resignation  of  office.'  The  picture  seems  a  little  odd  to 
our  modern  notions.  The  battered-out  old  King  kissing 
the  Iron  Duke,  and  the  Chancellor,  and  Peel  in  turn,  forms 
a  group  which  it  is  impossible  now  to  regard  without  a 
smile.  No  political  situation  could  be  grave  enough  not 
to  make  that  scene  seem  rather  ridiculous  now. 

The  King,  however,  soon  found  that  he  could  not  form 
any  Administration.  He  wrote  to  the  Duke  telling  him  as 
much,  and  asking  the  Ministers  to  remain  in  their  offices 
and  carry  out  their  Irish  policy.  Peel  very  wisely  pressed 
the  Duke  to  obtain  some  more  formal  authority;  and  the 


CATHOLIC    EMANCIPATION    COME  85 

King    finally    struck    his    colours.       He   gave    the    formal 
authority.     The  struggle  was  over. 

The  Bill  passed  through  the  House  of  Commons    in 
March.      It   had   large   majorities   on   every  division.      It 
passed  through  the  House  of  Lords  in  April.     When  intro- 
ducing the  Bill  into  the  House  of  Commons,  Peel  used  a  fine 
and  striking  figure  of  speech,  which  was  not  only  interesting 
in  itself,  but  interesting  also,  almost  painfully  interesting,  as 
a   perfect  illustration    of  his   own   attitude  with  regard  to 
Catholic  Emancipation.     '  We  cannot,'  he  went  on  to  say, 
'  replace  the  Roman  Catholics  in  the  condition  in  which  we 
found  them  when  the  system  of  relaxation  and  indulgence 
began.'     '  We  have  removed  with  our  own  hands  the  seal 
from  a  vessel  in  which  a  mighty  spirit  was  inclosed ;  but 
it  will  not,  like  the  genie  in  the  fable,  return  to  its  narrow 
confines,  and  enable  us  to  cast  it  back  to  the  obscurity 
from  which  we  evoked  it.' 

It  was  not  in  such  a  tone  that  Burke  or  Canning  would 
have  spoken  of  Catholic  Emancipation.     These  men  would 
have  advocated  religious  freedom  as  a  good  in  itself,  not  as 
something  to  be  conceded,  almost  with  regret,  when  it  became 
impossible  without  danger  to  refuse  it  any  longer.     But  we 
have  to  bear  in  mind  all  through  this  chapter  of  history, 
that  Peel  did  not  take  the  same  view  of  the  subject  that 
Burke  and  Canning  had  done.     He  had  not  the  enlarged 
mind,  any  more  than  he  had  the  genius,  of  Burke.     But  he 
was    a    shrewder    practical    statesman   than  Burke  or  than 
Canning,    and    when    he    had    made   up    his    mind  that  a 
certain   measure   ought   to  be  carried,  he  bent  the  whole 
strength  of  his  intellect,  his  energy,  and  his  influence    to 
carry  it.     He  had  that  quality  which  Carlyle  commends  in 
Mirabeau  :  he  'argued  not  with  the  inexorable.'     If  a  thing 


S6  SIR  ROBERT  PEEL 

had  to  be  done,  he  was  for  doing  it  at  once.     If  he  was  not 
a  Burke,  neither  was  he  an  Eldon. 

Peel  frankly  declared  during  the  debate  that  the  credit 
of  settling  the  question  belonged  to  others,  and  not  to  him. 
'  It  belongs,'  he  said,   '  in  spite  of  my  opposition,  to  Mr. 
Fox,   to    Mr.  Grattan,  to  Mr.  Plunket,  to   the  honourable 
gentlemen  opposite,  and  to  an  illustrious  and  right  honour- 
able friend  of  mine  who  is  now  no  more.'     He  might  have 
added  the  name  of  Lord  Grey.     Bitter  attacks  were  made 
on  Peel  for  the  manner  in  which  it  was  alleged  that  he  had 
hounded  Canning — the   '  illustrious  and    right    honourable 
friend  ' — to    his    death,   and   then  made  use   of  Canning's 
policy.     Peel  replied  with  dignity,  composure,  and  success  : 
'  Whoever   joined    in    an    inhuman    cry    against    my    right 
honourable  friend,  I  did  not.     I  was  on  terms  of  the  most 
friendly  intimacy  with  him  up  to  the  very  day  of  his  death  ; 
and  I  say,  with  as  much  sincerity  as  the  heart  of  man  can 
speak    that  I  wish  he  were  now  alive  to  reap  the  harvest 
which  he  sowed.'     The  charge  of  having  hounded  Canning 
to  his  death  was  renewed  again  and  again  at  a  later  period 
in  the  career  of  Peel.     It  is  a  charge  easily  made,  and  too 
often  made,  in  the  case  of  a  statesman  who  dies  prematurely  ; 
some  political  rival  or  enemy  is  always  said  to  have  hounded 
him  to  his  death.     In  truth,  the  Parliamentary  battle  is  a  hard 
fight  for  men  of  delicate  constitution  and  sensitive  nerves  ; 
it  has  sometimes  proved  too  hard  even  for  men  who  began 
with  the  strength  of  a  Hercules  and  the  nerves  of  an  Ajax. 
It  broke  down  Walpole,  and  Chatham,  and  Pitt,  and  Fox. 
It  is  often  a  fierce,  unsparing  fight.     In  the  hot  struggle  for 
principle,  for  party,  and  for  passion,  the  men  on  both  sides 
are  driven  remorselessly  forward.     It  is  not  a  time  for  pity 
and  for  quarter.      Peel  had  all  the  genius  and  the  joy  of  the 


CATHOLIC   EMANCIPATION    COME  87 

strife,  and  he  did  his  best  against  Canning,  than  whom  few 
men  were  ever  better  able  to  defend  themselves.  But  Peel 
did  no  more  than  every  English  leader  of  a  party  would 
have  done.  One  of  the  men  who,  at  a  later  period,  made 
the  charge  most  bitterly  against  Peel,  was  Disraeli.  But 
if  Peel  had  died  at  any  time  soon  after  Disraeli's  philippics 
against  him,  someone  would  have  been  sure  to  say  that 
Disraeli  had  hunted  Peel  to  his  death.  It  was  right,  how- 
ever, to  use  the  illustrious  name  of  Canning  in  that  debate. 
From  whatever  cause  his  death  came  so  soon,  he  lived  again 
in  that  great  struggle  and  that  great  success.  It  was  the 
triumph  of  Canning. 

Soon  after  this,  a  young  and  promising  student  of  the 
University  of  Oxford — William  Ewart  Gladstone — succeeded 
in  carrying  in  the  Oxford  Union  a  vote  of  censure  on 
Sir  Robert  Peel  for  the  part  he  had  taken  in  admitting 
the  Roman  Catholics  to  electoral  equality.  Other  men,  it 
would  seem,  were  born  Tories,  as  well  as  Peel,  who  were 
destined  to  be  re-born  into  another  and  a  more  expansive 
political  creed. 


8S  SIR    ROBERT   PEEL 


CHAPTER   VIII 

REFORM 

Peel  labours  at  Reform  of  the  Criminal  Code,  following  to  some  length 
the  ideas  of  Romilly  and  Mackintosh  ;  brings  in  and  carries  the 
Metropolitan  Police  Act — Death  of  George  IV. — The  Revolution 
of  July  in  France— William  IV.  believed  to  be  in  favour  of  Reform 
— Defeat  of  Wellington  Administration  on  Sir  Henry  Parnell's 
motion  for  inquiry  into  Civil  List. 

A  collection  of  biographical  sketches  of  statesmen 
belonging  to  the  Georgian  Era  was  published  in  1832.  It 
contains  a  memoir  of  Sir  Robert  Peel — so  far  as  he  had  then 
gone.  It  sums  him  up  by  saying  that,  '  as  a  statesman  he 
has  displayed  much  practical  ability.'  '  Uncommon  industry 
and  plain  good  sense,'  it  goes  on  to  say,  '  added  to  a  most 
intimate  knowledge  of  official  business,  have  enabled  him  to 
master  difficulties  which  to  many  politicians  of  more  exalted 
intellect  and  greater  pretensions  would  have  been  insur- 
mountable.' The  memoir  winds  up  with  the  declaration 
that  '  even  those  who  are  opposed  to  him  in  politics  must 
admit  his  utility  to  a  large  extent  ;  and  no  man  of  candour 
can  deny  that  his  exertions  to  soften  the  rigour  of  our 
criminal  code  entitle  him  to  the  gratitude  of  his  country.' 
This,  then,  was  the  public  opinion  of  Peel  at  the  age  of 
forty-two.  Had  he  died  just  then  we  should  have  read  of 
him,  as  his  greatest  praise,  that  he  had  much  practical 
ability,    uncommon  industry,  and  plain  good  sense  ;   that 


REFORM  89 

everybody  admitted  his  utility — 'to  a  large   extent '—and 
that  he  had  made  honourable  exertions  to  soften  the  rigour 
of  our  criminal  code.     To  be  sure,  if  Lord  Palmerston  had 
died  at  the  age  of  sixty-five  we  should  never  have  known 
that  he  was  a  really  great  Parliamentary  debater.     If  Von 
Moltke  had  died  at  the  age  of  sixty-five,  we  should  never 
have  known  that  he  could  direct  a  campaign.     To  modern 
readers,  the  exertions  which  Peel  made  to  mitigate  the  rigour 
of  our   criminal  code  are  but  an  episode,  and  an  almost 
forgotten  episode,  of  his  career;  and  that  he  was  a  laborious 
and  plodding  business-man  seems  to  us  a  matter  so  unim- 
portant in  his  history  as  to  be  hardly  worth  mentioning.    In 
striving  to  soften  the  harshness  of  our  criminal    code,   he 
merely  endeavoured  to  carry  out  in  Acts  of  Parliament  the 
humane  efforts  of  other  men.     Peel  never  claimed  to  be 
considered  as   a   great  law  reformer,    although  he   carried 
great  reforms  in  law.     'Rebellion,'  says  Falstaff,  speaking 
satirically    of  the   Earl  of  Worcester's   excuse,  '  lay   in  his 
way,  and  he  found  it.'     Peel,  speaking  not  satirically,  but 
earnestly,  and  in  simple  good  faith,  might  have  said  that  law 
reform  lay  in  his  way,  and  he  found  it.     He  worked  up  the 
Jury  Bill,  and  the  Pills  for  the  consolidation  and  the  improve- 
ment of  the  criminal  law,  from  the  ideas  of  Mackintosh  and 
Romilly.     Why,  it  has  been  sometimes  asked,  did  not  Peel 
give  the  credit  of  these  measures  to  Romilly.  and  Mackintosh, 
and  such  men,  as  he  gave  the  credit  for  Catholic  Emancipa- 
tion to  Fox,  and  Grattan,  and  Plunket,  and  Canning,  and 
the  credit,  later  in  his  life,  of  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws 
to  Cobden  ?     The  answer  seems  clear  enough.     Peel  never 
professed  to  do  more  than  to  adopt  the  ideas  of  Romilly 
and  Mackintosh.     To  adopt  them  was  to  acknowledge  them. 
Indeed,  Peel  did  not  go  far  enough  for  Mackintosh  in  his 


90  SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 

proposal  to  abolish  the  death  penalty  in  certain  cases  of 
forgery.  Mackintosh  rightly  desired  that  the  death  penalty 
should  be  abolished  in  all  cases  of  forgery,  and  he  ultimately 
carried  his  measure,  in  spite  of  the  resistance  of  the 
Government.  If  any  such  occasion  had  arisen  in  the 
House  of  Commons  as  that  which  arose  with  regard  to 
Catholic  Emancipation  and  to  the  repeal  of  the  Corn 
Laws,  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  Peel  would  have  made  as 
generous  an  acknowledgment  of  his  indebtedness  in  the  one 
case  as  he  did  in  the  other  two.  It  is  to  Peel's  great  honour 
as  a  statesman  that,  the  moment  the  Catholic  question  had 
been  settled,  and  his  energy  was  set  free  for  other  work,  he 
turned  his  attention  at  once  to  various  schemes  of  reform  in 
our  law  code  and  in  our  Civil  Service  administration.  He 
introduced  measures  by  which  the  gallows  was  robbed  of 
much  of  its  annual  prey.  He  had,  indeed,  been  engaged  at 
this  work  before  the  Catholic  question  came  up  to  interrupt 
it  ;  and  he  turned  to  its  completion,  so  far  as  it  could  be 
completed  in  his  day,  when  the  Catholic  question  ceased  to 
be  a  subject  of  controversy.  By  the  Metropolitan  Police 
Act  he  gave  London  her  efficient  system  of  police,  and 
superseded  the  poor  old  Charleys  of  the  days  of  Pelham  and 
of  Tom  and  Jerry.  He  had  a  genius  and  an  omnivorous 
appetite  for  work.  All  the  time  he  found  leisure  for  the 
books  and  the  pictures  which  he  loved  ;  he  still  read  and 
re-read  his  favourite  classic  authors.  He  was  a  curious 
combination  of  the  hard-working,  intensely  practical 
administrator  and  the  virtuoso  or  dilettante.  He  must 
have  enjoyed  his  life  much  at  this  time.  To  pass  from 
hard,  official  work  to  a  quiet  read  in  his  study,  and  from 
the  quiet  read  in  his  study  to  the  fierce,  impassioned 
debates    of    the    House    of    Commons,    disciplined    his 


REFORM  91 

nature  like  a  healthy  change  of  exercise.  He  enjoyed  the 
vivid  life  of  the  House  of  Commons.  Few  men,  indeed, 
have  ever  succeeded  in  that  life  who  did  not  love  it. 
One  might  be  inclined  to  say  off-hand  that  no  man  who  did 
not  love  that  life  ever  made  a  great  success  in  it,  if  we  did 
not  remember  the  signal  example  of  John  Bright,  who 
detested  the  House  of  Commons,  and  prevailed  in  it. 

The  Government  emerged  from  the  struggle  on  Catholic 
Emancipation  victorious  indeed,  but  terribly  shaken.  Their 
condition  might  remind  one  of  that  of  the  princess  in  the 
'Arabian  Nights'  who  fought  the  great  battle  in  the  cause 
of  right  against  the  evil  genie,  and  who  proved  herself  a 
mistress  of  better  magic  art  than  even  his,  but  who  won 
her  battle  with  such  sore  trouble,  and  at  such  dire  loss, 
that  she  died  immediately  after  she  had  accomplished  the 
destruction  of  her  adversary.  They  had  brought  on  them- 
selves the  deadly  enmity  of  the  old-fashioned  Tories.  They 
had  not  in  the  slightest  degree  conciliated  the  Whigs. 
They  had  not  even  conciliated  the  Irish  Catholics.  The 
manner  in  which  Catholic  Emancipation  had  been  granted, 
and  the  manner  in  which  O'Connell  had  been  treated,  took 
away  from  the  measure  much  of  its  charm.  It  is  probable 
that  Peel,  if  left  to  himself — that  even  Wellington,  if  left 
to  himself,  would  have  ordered  matters  quite  otherwise. 
Either,  probably,  would  have  taken  care  that,  since  Eman- 
cipation was  to  be  granted,  it  should  be  granted  generously, 
and  that,  as  it  was  certain  that  O'Connell  must  come 
into  Parliament,  he  should  not  be  vainly  and  offensively 
obstructed  by  a  futile  act  of  postponement.  The  readers 
of  the  present  day  will  fail  to  understand  the  history  of 
that  time  altogether,  recent  and  near  to  our  own  as  it  is, 
if  they  do  not  succeed  in  forming  some  idea  of  that  senti- 


92  SIR   ROBERT    PEEL 

ment  of  devotion  to  the  will,  the  pleasure,  the  mere  caprice 
of  the  sovereign,  which  was  an  article  of  faith  among  states- 
men of  all  parties.  It  was  not  only  Pitt  who  did  homage  to 
this  fetish  of  royal  will  on  the  subject  of  Catholic  Emanci- 
pation.    We  know  that  Fox  once  did  homage  to  it  as  well. 

The  Tories  therefore  had  a  hard  fight  before  them.  No 
sooner  had  the  Catholic  question  been  disposed  of  than  the 
Reform  question  began  to  raise  anew  its  now  really  formid- 
able pretensions.  There  was  much  distress  in  the  country. 
Trade  was  dislocated  in  many  places  ;  business  was  sus- 
pended in  once  flourishing  cities  and  towns.  Distress 
brought,  as  it  always  does,  political  discontent.  Wellington 
and  Peel  tried  to  strengthen  themselves  by  drawing  to  their 
aid  some  Whigs  who  were  willing  to  put  aside  for  the  moment 
their  own  peculiar  opinions  in  order  to  carry  on  the  govern- 
ment of  the  country  in  some  practical  and  satisfactory 
manner.  Nothing  came  of  these  attempts  ;  nothing  solid 
and  abiding  at  least.  England,  as  Disraeli  said  long  after- 
wards, does  not  love  coalitions  ;  and  in  this  case  even  a 
coalition  was  not  practicable.  Lord  Grey  and  Lord  John 
Russell  could  not  be  expected  to  coalesce  with  the  Duke  of 
Wellington  and  Robert  Peel.  A  new  power  had  come  into 
the  House  of  Commons  ;  a  new  factor  in  every  political 
situation — O'Connell  and  the  Irish  vote.  An  alliance  with 
O'Connell  soon  became  one  of  the  conditions  of  a  political 
party  which  was  determined  to  come  into  office  and  into 
power. 

Two  events  occurred  which  precipitated  conclusions. 
On  June  26,  1830,  George  IV.  died;  and  a  month  after,  the 
revolution  of  the  Three  Days  of  July  broke  out  in  Paris. 
King  George  was  hardly  cold  in  his  grave,  when  Charles  X. 
of  France  arrived  an  exile  in  England.     The  important  fact 


REFORM  93 

in  the  death  of  George  IV.  was  that  it  brought  a  king  to  the 
throne  who  was  not  supposed  to  be  pledged  in  advance  to 
anything  in  particular.     William  IV  had  not  anything  like 
the  education  or  the  natural  capacity  of  his  dead   brother 
George.      George  IV.  was  undoubtedly  a  man  of  culture  and 
of  talent ;    Thackeray  was   entirely   mistaken   in  his   ideas 
as   to  George's   lack  of  natural  intelligence.      The  prince 
who  was  summed  up  by  Burke — much  to  George's  personal 
annoyance — as  'brilliant  but  superficial,'  could  not  possibly 
have  been    the  mere   figure   of   inanity  and   idiocy  that   is 
set   up  by  Thackeray  as  a  likeness   of  George    IV.     But 
William  had  a  reputation  for  honesty  and  straightforward- 
ness   and    for    a    sincere    although    awkwardly    illustrated 
interest    in    the  well-being  of  his   people.      What   George 
IV.   wanted  was  not  talent  but  sympathy  ;    he  could  only 
sympathize  with   himself.      William  was  understood  to  be 
likely  to    make    in  his    rude  ungainly  sort   of  way  a  kind 
of   Patriot  King.      His  accession  to   the  throne  gave  new 
hopes   to  the  Whigs.      Every  one  remembered  his   recent 
quarrel    with    the    I  Hike    of  Wellington,    when    the    Duke, 
perfectly  in  the  right,  insisted  on  a  course  which  compelled 
the  Duke  of  Clarence,  as  William  then  was,  to  retire  from 
the  office  of  Lord  High  Admiral.    But,  much  more  than  that 
the  Whigs  relied  on  the  character  which  William  had  some- 
how   managed    to   acquire    for  sincerity   and    for   patriotic 
feeling.     In  fact,  he  did  prove  to  be  much  more  of  a  con- 
stitutional   Sovereign   than   any  of  the  Georges  had  been. 
The  Whigs  began  to  press  on  their  motions  for  reform  and 
for  retrenchment.     The  King  retained  the  existing  ministry, 
but  there  was  a  very  widespread  impression  that  there  was 
going  to  be  a  break  up  before  long.     Then  came  the  Revo- 
lution in   France,  and  the  modern  history  of  England   has 


94  SIR    ROBERT   PEEL 

always  curiously  vibrated  to  the  sound  of  the  great  move- 
ments in  France.  An  anti-reforming  Sovereign  and  an 
anti-reforming  ministry  in  France  had  gone  down — who 
could  doubt  of  the  moral  effect  of  such  a  lesson  on  the 
population  of  England  ;  on  the  Liberal  party  of  England  ? 
The  King's  speech  at  the  meeting  of  the  new  Parliament  in 
November  1S30,  contained  no  allusion  to  the  necessity  for 
any  manner  of  Parliamentary  reform.  Lord  Grey  in  the 
House  of  Lords  complained  of  this  ;  and  his  complaint 
drew  from  the  Duke  of  Wellington  a  comprehensive  declara- 
tion against  all  schemes  of  Parliamentary  reform.  The  Duke 
would  make  no  compromise,  would  hold  out  no  hope.  The 
speech  is  almost  touching  in  its  frank  simplicity  and  its 
absolute  conviction.  We  are  borne  back  to  quite  another 
era  of  man's  history  as  we  read  it.  There  is  probably  no 
English  public  man  now  living  who  would  profess  to  be  so 
certain  of  the  perfection  of  any  human  institution  whatever 
as  the  Duke  of  Wellington  declared  himself  certain  of  the 
perfection  of  the  existing  constitution — that  constitution 
which  was  destined  to  be  completely  reorganised  within  less 
than  two  years.  Never,  the  Duke  proclaimed,  would  he  as 
a  Minister  have  anything  to  do  with  any  scheme  which 
proposed  to  touch  that  ark  of  the  covenant. 

This  must  have  been  a  somewhat  startling  announce- 
ment to  Peel — now  by  the  death  of  his  father  become  Sir 
Robert  Peel.  We  have  the  authority  of  Lord  Dalling  and 
Bulwer  for  saying  that  Peel  '  was  by  no  means  pleased  with 
this  hasty  and  decided  announcement.'  Indeed,  we  hardly 
need  any  authority  to  make  us  feel  well  assured  on  this 
subject.  Peel  as  a  genuine  and  a  practical  statesman  had 
a  natural  contempt  for  theories  of  finality,  and  for  hard 
and  fast  lines  in  political  affairs.      He  reasoned  a  posteriori, 


REFORM  95 

and  not  a  priori,  in  such  matters.  He  must  have  clearly 
foreseen  the  disadvantage  at  which  the  Duke's  unstates- 
manlike  and  sweeping  declaration  would  place  the  Govern- 
ment. He  could  not  of  course  contradict  or  correct  his 
leader  ;  but  he  went  as  far  as  he  could  in  the  House  of 
Commons  to  break  the  force  of  the  Duke's  declaration  by 
saying  for  himself  that  he  did  not  '  at  that  moment  see  any 
prospect  of  such  a  measure  of  safe  and  moderate  reform  as 
his  Majesty's  Government  might  be  inclined  to  sanction.' 
But  the  words  of  the  Duke  could  not  be  recalled.  '  Thus 
said  the  Duke  ;  thus  did  the  Duke  infer.'  The  effect  was 
to  give  an  immense  stimulus  to  the  Reform  party  all  over 
the  country.  They  had  a  new  King,  supposed  to  be  fond  of 
popularity  and  in  sympathy  with  the  people.  They  had  the 
lesson  taught  by  France  to  encourage  and  enlighten  them. 
They  had  the  declaration  of  the  Tory  Prime  Minister,  that 
he  would  never  under  any  circumstances  favour  any  measure 
of  Parliamentary  reform.  They  had  the  evidence  of  the 
modified  declaration  of  the  leader  of  the  Government  in  the 
House  of  Commons  to  prove  that  the  Cabinet  were  not 
quite  in  union  on  that  very  question  of  Parliamentary 
reform.  How  could  there  be  a  more  hopeful  conjunction  of 
conditions  for  a  regular  attack  upon  the  Government? 

The  attack  was  soon  made.  It  was  led  by  Sir  Henry 
Parnell  (afterwards  the  first  Lord  Congleton),  an  ancestor 
of  the  present  leader  of  the  Irish  National  Party  in  the 
House  of  Commons.  Parnell's  attack,  which  was  opened 
on  November  14,  1830,  came  in  the  shape  of  a  motion  for 
a  committee  to  take  into  consideration  the  estimates  and 
amounts  proposed  for  the  Civil  List.  The  Government 
strenuously  opposed  the  motion,  and  were  left  the  following 
evening  in  a  minority  of  twenty-nine.     It  was  not  a  motion 


g6  SIR    ROBERT    PEEL 

that  would  in  those  days  have  been  supposed  to  call  neces- 
sarily for  a  ministerial  resignation ;  but  Wellington  and 
Peel  saw  a  cloud  of  difficulties  and  dangers  surrounding 
them,  and  were  honestly  convinced  that  they  had  no  longer 
the  confidence  of  the  country.  Nothing  was  more  curious 
than  the  manner  in  which  they  were  opposed.  Sir  Henry 
Parnell  was,  by  conviction  and  by  family  traditions,  a 
devoted  supporter  of  the  policy  of  Catholic  Emancipation. 
Yet  he  took  the  first  opportunity  in  his  power  to  turn  out 
the  Ministry  which  had  carried  Catholic  Emancipation, 
and  which  alone  could  then  have  carried  it.  He  was  not 
to  blame;  he  was  perfectly  right.  We  cannot  found  a  poli- 
tical policy  on  the  principle  of  gratitude.  Parnell  and  his 
friends  had  carried  Catholic  Emancipation  through  Peel 
and  Wellington.  That  was  done  with ;  and  they  now 
wanted  to  carry  Political  Reform.  Wellington  would  not 
have  anything  to  do  with  such  a  task.  The  clear  course 
for  the  Liberals  was  to  try  to  get  some  statesmen  who 
would.  To  have  any  hesitation  about  this  would  be  as 
absurd  as  for  a  man  to  say  that  out  of  gratitude  to  the 
London  and  North-Western  Railway  Company  for  bringing 
him  from  Manchester  to  Euston  he  would  decline  to  accept 
the  services  of  the  Great  Western  Company  in  carrying  him 
from  Paddington  to  Bristol,  although  he  wanted  to  get  to 
Bristol  and  the  North-Western  line  could  not  carry  him 
thither.  But  the  Wellington  administration  was  also  op- 
posed by  some  reformers  of  a  peculiar  order — bitter  and 
envenomed  Tories  who  had  turned  reformers  merely  because 
Wellington  and  Peel  had  emancipated  the  Roman  Catholics. 
These  men — they  were  not  many,  but  they  were  very  active 
and  unscrupulous — suddenly  declared  for  Parliamentary 
reform,  partly  because  they  had  a  wild  hope  that  if  the 


REFORM  97 

franchise  should  be  made  more  popular  there  was  enough 
of  the  no-popery  feeling  among  Englishmen  to  carry  a 
repeal  of  the  Emancipation  Act,  and  partly  because  they 
thought  any  stick  was  good  enough  wherewith  to  beat  the 
Tory  statesmen  who  had  refused  to  govern  England  on 
the  principle  of  religious  disqualification. 

Peel  took  the  whole  crisis  with  that  magnanimous  patience 
which  was  part  of  his  nature.  He  had  never  for  a  moment 
fancied  that  by  passing  Catholic  Emancipation  he  would 
be  doing  anything  to  make  his  position  as  a  statesman 
in  office  any  stronger.  On  the  contrary  he  knew  perfectly 
well — he  had  never  attempted  to  disguise  from  himself  or 
from  others — that  it  must  tend  inevitably,  at  least  for  the 
time,  to  weaken  his  position.  He  knew  very  well  that  the 
Catholic  vote  in  Parliament  would  go  with  the  party  of 
Reform  ;  and  he  knew  that  he  could  not  just  then  construct 
a  party  of  reform  out  of  the  Tory  materials  at  his  com- 
mand. In  any  case  the  sudden  declaration  of  the  Duke 
of  Wellington  must  have  brought  on  an  immediate  crisis. 


n 


98  SIR    ROBERT    PEEL 


CHAPTER    IX 

THE    FIRST    REFORM    BATTLE 

Lord  Grey  has  to  be  sent  for — The  Reform  Administration  —The  first 
Reform  Bill  introduced  by  Lord  John  Russell — Peel  opposes  it — 
Defeat  of  the  Government,  and  dissolution. 

There  was   no  alternative ;   absolutely  none.     Lord  Grey 

had  to  be  sent  for.     The  King,   of  course,  had  not  the 

same  set  feeling  of  repugnance  to  Lord  Grey  that  was  felt 

by  his  predecessor ;  indeed,  on  the  contrary,  was  supposed 

to   be   willing  enough   to   court  popularity  by  accepting  a 

minister  who  was  recognised  as  a  popular  statesman.     Lord 

Grey  answered  the  request  to  form  an  administration  with 

characteristic  straightforwardness  and  resolution.     His  first 

stipulation  was  that  electoral  reform  should  be  a  Cabinet 

question.     The  condition  was  accepted,  and  Lord  Grey  at 

once  formed  a  Ministry.     He  became  First  Lord  of  the 

Treasury ;  and  at  that  time  it  was  not  so  hard  a  task  as  it 

has  since  become  to  manage  an   administration  with  the 

leading  statesman  in  the  House  of  Lords.     Lord  Brougham 

was    made    Lord    Chancellor — curiously    enough,    at    the 

suggestion  of  the  King.     Lord  Grey  did  not  exactly  know 

what  to  do  with  Brougham,  but  was  quite  certain  he  could 

not  do  without  him.     Brougham's  tremendous  energy  and 

extraordinary  power  of  speech  at  the  bar,  at  the  hustings, 

and  in   Parliament,  had  made  him  the  most  powerful  and 


THE   FIRST   REFORM    BATTLE  99 

popular  man  in  the  party.  He  was  probably  the  greatest 
platform  speaker  in  the  country  with  the  single  exception  of 
O'Connell.  He  was  making  money  largely  at  the  bar,  and 
to  accept  any  ordinary  ministerial  office  would  have  been 
a  serious  sacrifice  for  him.  He  was  offered  the  position 
of  Attorney-General  and  refused  it.  Then  the  King, 
admonished  by  Lord  Grey  that  it  would  be  very  hard 
indeed  to  get  on  without  Brougham,  suggested  that  the 
woolsack  should  be  offered  to  him.  It  was  offered,  and 
was  reluctantly  accepted.  To  Brougham  it  meant  loss  of 
money,  a  temporary  office,  and  the  abandonment  of  a  great 
popular  position.  It  was  pressed  upon  him,  however,  by 
Lord  Grey  as  a  duty  to  his  party  and  his  country;  and 
Brougham  accepted  the  office.  His  own  objections  were 
prophetic.  From  the  hour  when  he  took  his  seat  on  the 
woolsack  he  ceased  to  be  a  real  influence  in  political  life. 

Lord  Althorp  was  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  and 
leader  of  the  House  of  Commons  in  the  new  administration. 
Lord  Melbourne  had  charge  of  the  Home  Office.  Lord 
Palmerston  began  his  long  career  as  Foreign  Secretary. 
The  sinecure  office  of  the  Privy  Seal  was  given  to  Lord 
Grey's  son-in-law,  the  strenuous  and  high-minded,  but  very 
hot-tempered,  Lord  Durham;  the  man  who  was  afterwards 
to  rescue  Canada  from  chaos  and  lay  the  foundations  of 
the  Dominion.  Lord  John  Russell  was  made  Paymaster 
General  of  the  Forces — a  post  which  had  been  occupied  by 
the  elder  Pitt  and  by  Burke — and  in  his  case,  as  in  theirs, 
without  a  seat  in  the  Cabinet.  Lord  Grey  at  once 
announced  his  intention  of  bringing  forward  a  measure  of 
Reform.  He  entrusted  the  framing  of  the  scheme  to  a 
committee  of  four  men — Lord  John  Russell,  Lord  Durham, 
Sir   James  Graham,  and  Lord  Duncannon.     The  task  of 

11  2 


100  SIR    ROBERT   PEEL 

shaping  a  draft  of  the  measure  was  deputed  to  Lord  John 
Russell,  and  his  scheme,  with  some  modifications  suggested 
by  Lord  Durham,  was  adopted  as  the  plan  of  the  measure. 

This  book  is  not  intended  as  a  history  of  the  Reform 
Bill.  It  only  concerns  itself  with  the  history  of  the  Bill  so 
far  as  it  affected  the  career  of  Sir  Robert  Peel.  There  can 
be  very  little  doubt  that  Peel,  if  he  had  had  his  own  way 
and  had  not  been  stopped  by  the  peremptory  declaration  of 
the  Duke  of  Wellington,  would  have  endeavoured  to  bring 
in  some  sort  of  reform  scheme  of  his  own.  It  would,  no 
doubt,  have  been  very  cautious  and  tentative;  but  it  is 
quite  possible  that  he  might  have  seen  his  way  to  a  measure 
which  the  country  could  have  accepted  as  an  instalment, 
and  that  he  might  thus  have  kept  his  party  in  office 
for  some  time  longer.  It  is  even  possible  that  if  he  had  put 
his  hand  to  the  work  he  might  have  seen  his  way  to  some 
wider  measure  of  redress.  We  have  seen  how,  from  the 
moment  when  he  made  up  his  mind  to  undertake  a  settle- 
ment of  the  Catholic  question,  he  made  up  his  mind  also 
that  it  must  be  a  real  and  a  permanent  settlement.  It  is 
quite  possible  that  if  he  had  once  given  his  mind  to  the 
preparation  of  a  Reform  Bill,  he  might  soon  have  come  to 
see  that  the  measure  must  rest  secure  on  a  broad  basis  and 
not  be  perched  precariously  on  a  narrow  ledge.  The  im- 
petuosity of  the  Duke  of  Wellington  cut  Peel  off  from  any 
chance  of  attempting  a  settlement  of  the  Reform  question, 
and  the  scheme  brought  forward  by  Lord  John  Russell 
seemed  to  all  Tory  minds  so  sweeping  and  even  so  revolu- 
tionary in  its  character  that  it  became  a  part  of  Peel's 
natural  instincts  and  temper  and  training  to  oppose  it  to 
the  uttermost.  The  Bill  does  not  seem  to  us  now  a  very 
audacious  measure.     It  did  nothing  more  than  extinguish 


THE   FIRST   REFORM   BATTLE  IOI 

some  rotten  boroughs,  efface  the  names  of  constituencies 
which  were  only  constituencies  in  name,  enfranchise  some 
of  the  great  towns,  fix  a  regular  and  equal  franchise  in  the 
boroughs,  and  modify,  by  some  slight  new  introductions, 
the  high  franchise  in  the  counties.  It  was  not  by  any 
means  a  democratic  measure,  for  it  actually  abolished  some 
of  the  'fancy  franchises,'  as  we  might  call  them,  adopting 
the  phraseology  of  a  later  day,  which  gave  a  chance  here 
and  there  to  the  working-class.  What  the  Bill  did  was  to 
transfer  the  power  from  the  upper  to  the  middle  class; 
from  the  noble  to  the  bourgeois.  The  prolctaire  was  left 
completely  out  in  the  cold.  The  privileges  he  had  already 
enjoyed  were  taken  away  from  him. 

Still,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  Bill  at  the  time  was 
looked  on  by  all  the  Tory  party  and  even  by  some  of  the 
timid  Whigs  as  a  mere  crude  measure  of  revolution.  Lord 
Dalling  says  that  Lord  John  Russell's  explanation  of  the 
Bill  'almost  appeared  a  joke,'  and  insists  that  'had  Sir 
Robert  Peel  risen  when  Lord  John  sat  down,  and  said  that 
he  would  have  been  prepared  to  consider  any  reasonable  or 
practical  plan,  but  that  the  plan  of  the  Government  was 
a  mockery  repugnant  to  the  good  sense  of  the  House,  and 
that  he  could  not  therefore  allow  the  time  of  Parliament  to 
be  lost  by  discussing  it  ;  moving  at  the  same  time  the  order 
of  the  day,  and  pledging  himself  to  bring  the  question  in 
a  practical  form  under  the  attention  of  the  House  of 
Commons  at  an  early  opportunity,  he  would  have  had 
a  majority  of  at  least  a  hundred  in  his  favour.' 

This  is  rather  too  much  of  a  conjecture.  Even  if  it 
were  well-founded,  it  would  have  made  no  great  difference 
to  the  cause  of  Reform  in  the  end.  Lord  Dalling  is  speak- 
ing only  of  the  House  of  Commons  ;  and  is  thinking  only 

LIBRARY 

ST/rr  TEAC-ER  SC   L  EOE 
SA   TA  .AHBAl'A.Ci  -  I  -HM* 
->    Z.  n     *L  H 


102  SIR    ROBERT    PEEL 

of  that  House  of  Commons.  The  whole  mass  of  the  people 
outside  the  House  of  Commons  and  all  Parliamentary 
circles  were  determined  that  the  suffrage  must  be  extended 
and  the  electoral  system  reformed.  But  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  in  the  House  of  Commons  itself  the  propositions 
of  the  Government  seemed  nothing  short  of  revolutionary, 
and  the  general  expectation  was  that  the  Ministry  would 
almost  instantaneously  fall. 

The  first  reading  of  the  Bill  was  allowed  to  pass,  without 
a  division,  according  to  the  usual,  although  by  no  means  the 
invariable,  practice  of  the  House  of  Commons.  But  with 
the  second  reading  the  battle  set  in,  and  the  second  reading 
was  only  carried  by  a  majority  of  one — 302  to  301.  This 
naturally  put  the  Opposition  into  the  highest  good  spirits. 
It  did  not  seem  possible  that  a  measure  which  had  so  nearly 
been  overthrown  in  the  open  battle  on  the  second  reading 
could  come  out  with  life  from  the  intricacies  and  ambushes 
and  surprises  of  a  fight  in  Committee.  The  Bill  was  not,  how- 
ever, destined  to  get  into  Committee.  On  the  motion  for 
going  into  Committee  an  amendment  was  moved  which 
struck  at  one  main  principle  of  the  measure,  and  on  that 
amendment  the  Government  were  defeated  by  a  majority  of 
eight.  It  only  remained  now  to  dissolve  Parliament  and 
appeal  to  the  country  at  a  general  election.  The  King  was 
strongly  opposed  to  such  a  step.  He  complained  bitterly  of 
being  advised  to  dissolve  a  Parliament  which  had  only  just 
been  elected.  Grey  and  Brougham  were  firm  and  William  IV, 
gave  way.  Parliament  was  to  be  dissolved  and  dissolved  on 
the  Reform  question. 

Sir  Robert  Peel  took  a  strenuous  and  a  consistent  part 
in  opposing  the  Bill.  It  was  a  consistent  part  because 
although  he  might  have  been  willing  under  favourable  con- 


THE    FIRST   REFORM    BATTLE  103 

ditions  to  support  or  even  to  introduce  a  scheme  of  Parlia- 
mentary reform,  yet  it  is  certain  that  he  would  not  have 
introduced  such  a  scheme  as  that  of  Lord  John  Russell,  and 
that  he,  like  others,  was  perfectly  thunderstricken  when  he 
heard  Lord  John  Russell's  exposition  of  the  measure.  It 
would  be  hard  for  us  now  to  understand  how  sweeping,  how 
audacious,  the  Bill  was  considered  to  be  by  all  the  Tory  and 
some  of  the  Whig  politicians.  Joseph  Hume  declared  that, 
radical  reformer  as  he  was,  the  plan  much  exceeded  his  ex- 
pectations, and  that,  with  all  his  disposition  to  put  con- 
fidence in  ministers,  he  was  not  prepared  to  find  them 
coming  forward  with  so  manly  a  measure.  The  Bill  was 
accepted  by  the  extreme  Radical  and  demagogue  'Orator 
Hunt,'  and  by  O'Connell,  whose  opinions  might  fairly  be 
described  as  those  of  advanced  Liberalism. 

It  was  natural,  therefore,  that  a  man  like  Peel  should  be 
sincerely  alarmed  at  such  a  measure  and  should  feel,  as  he 
did,  a  strong  and  sometimes  even  an  impassioned  determina- 
tion to  oppose  it  to  the  last.     On  the  second  reading  of  the 
Bill,  Peel  spoke  up  strongly  for  the  fancy  franchises  and  for 
the  small  constituencies.     One  passage  in  his  speech  on  this 
part  of  the  subject  has  a  personal  and  almost  a  touching  in- 
terest.    He  spoke  of  '  a  community,  whose  numbers  were  by 
the  returns  of  1821  not  more  than  four  thousand,  and  against 
whom  this  Bill  had  been  brought  without  any  allegation  of 
necessity  or  without  any  case  being  made  out  against  them. 
...  I  know  that  they  have  never  abused  their  right— that  the 
humblest  man  among  them  never  obtained  or  asked  a  bribe 
for  a  vote  he  gave.     They  received  me  when  I  had  been 
subjected  to  the  indignity  of  expulsion  for  what  I  conceived 
to  be  an  act  of  special   duty,  even  to  the  Church  of  which 
I  am  a  humble  member.     They  returned  me  then  as  their 


104  SIR    ROBERT   PEEL 

representative,  and  till  the  necessity  of  the  measure  is  esta- 
blished by  more  cogent  arguments  than  I  have  yet  heard, 
I  will  not  consent  to  deprive  them  of  their  right.'  The 
most  ingenious  part  of  the  speech  was  the  argument  for 
the  fancy  franchises.  Peel  contended  that  these  franchises 
enabled  every  class  in  the  community  '  in  some  way  or  other 
to  have  a  voice  in  the  election  of  Members  of  this  House.' 
'  Now,  I  do  not  mean  to  say  by  this,'  Peel  interposed  with 
characteristic  caution,  '  that  the  franchise  should  be  extended 
to  all  the  members  of  all  the  classes  of  the  community,  but 
that  the  constitution  works  well  for  having  here  and  there 
an  entrance  channel  for  the  broadest  principle  of  popular 
representation.'  Undoubtedly,  Peel  touched  the  one  great 
error  of  the  Bill.  It  did  by  the  abolition  of  these  peculiar 
franchises  cut  off  the  working  classes  altogether  from  any 
chance  of  having  a  vote.  In  some  communities — that  of 
Preston,  in  Lancashire,  for  example — there  was  an  ancient 
and  peculiar  system  of  franchise  which  amounted  to  some- 
thing very  like  universal  suffrage.  This  was,  indeed,  an 
exceptional  case,  but  there  were  many  places  and  many 
franchises  which  admitted  a  working  man  to  the  electoral 
body.  The  Bill  of  Lord  John  Russell  abolished  all  these 
franchises,  rubbed  them  out,  and  made  the  system  sym- 
metrical indeed,  but  symmetrical  at  the  expense  of  the 
working  classes.  The  working  classes,  by  whose  aid  mainly 
the  Bill  was  carried,  resented  this  bitterly  afterwards,  and 
it  helped  much  to  spread  the  growth  of  Chartism.  Peel's 
argument  in  favour  of  the  small  and  what  we  may  call  the 
patron-owned  constituencies  was  ingenious.  It  was  the 
argument  with  which  we  have  been  so  familiar  since  his 
time — that  these  small  constituencies  frequently  provided 
a  haven  of  refuge  for  great  and  patriotic  men  whom  some 


THE    FIRST    REFORM    BATTLE  i05 

popular  constituency  had  dismissed  from  its  representation. 
Undoubtedly  such  things  did  happen.  But  it  has  to  be 
remembered  that  the  representation  in  the  great  consti- 
tuencies was  then  on  so  narrow  a  basis  that  the  declaration 
of  a  constituency  was  often  little  more  than  the  decision  of 
some  one  particular  '  interest,'  or  clique,  and  that  it  was  but 
the  case  of  a  man  condemned  by  an  '  interest,'  and  rescued 
by  a  patron.  Since  the  extension  of  the  suffrage,  we  cannot 
remember  any  case  in  which  a  really  able  and  patriotic  man 
was  left  out  for  any  considerable  time — any  time  worth 
taking  into  account — if  he  desired  to  enter  or  to  re-enter 
the  House  of  Commons. 

Peel's  speech  naturally  contained  many  warnings  against 
the  spread  of  the  democratic  spirit — much  denunciation  of 
democracy.  It  closed  with  a  powerful  appeal  to  the  House 
of  Commons  to  take  care  that  it  did  not '  signalise  your  own 
destruction  by  bowing  down  the  pillars  of  the  edifice  of  your 
liberty,  which  with  all  its  imperfections  still  contains  the 
noblest  society  of  freemen  known  to  the  habitable  world.' 
Among  all  the  great  speeches  delivered  in  that  remarkable 
debate,  where  Russell  and  Palmerston  and  Macaulay  and 
O'Connell  took  part,  none  was  more  ingenious  or  more 
eloquent  than  that  of  Peel.  Peel  was  wrong  in  most  of  his 
conclusions,  and  almost  all  his  prognostications  of  danger 
came  out  to  be  unfounded.  But  this  only  means  that  he 
was  still  suffused  with  the  old-fashioned  Tory  spirit ;  and 
we  have  to  remember  that  his  objections  to  Parliamentary 
reform  in  the  radical  sense  were  objections  which  had  been 
shared  in  by  Canning  up  to  the  time  of  his  death. 

An  extraordinary  scene  took  place  in  the  House  of 
Commons  just  before  the  dissolution.  A  debate  was  going 
on  which  turned  more  or  less  irregularly  on  the  question  of 


io6  SIR  ROBERT   PEEL 

Reform,  and  on  the  impending  dissolution.  Suddenly  the 
first  cannon  proclaiming  the  approach  of  the  King  was 
heard.  Peel  had  just  sprung  to  his  feet  and  was  denouncing 
the  Reform  scheme  with  all  his  energy  and  passion.  For  the 
first,  although  not  the  only  time  in  his  political  career,  he 
allowed  himself  to  be  utterly  carried  away  by  anger.  He 
declaimed  and  stormed  with  all  the  vehemence  of  Brougham 
himself.  The  man  habitually  so  cool,  so  cold,  so  self-con- 
tained, now  shouted  with  the  fury  of  an  angry  demagogue. 
He  declared  that  if  the  Bill  and  the  whole  Bill  were  to  be 
passed,  '  there  will  be  established  one  of  the  worst  despotisms 
that  ever  existed.'  'We  shall  have  a  Parliament  of  mob 
demagogues— not  a  Parliament  of  wise  and  prudent  men.' 
'Such  a  Parliament,'  he  cried,  'and  the  spirit  of  jour- 
nalism, to  use  a  foreign  phrase,  has  brought  many  happy 
countries  to  the  brink  of  destruction.'  He  then  turned 
on  to  the  Ministers  themselves  and  declared  that  they  had 
shown  '  during  their  short  reign  of  power  more  incapacity, 
more  unfitness  for  office,  more  ignorance  of  their  duties,  than 
was  ever  exhibited  by  any  set  of  men  who  have  at  any  time 
been  called  on  to  rule  the  proud  destinies  of  their  country.' 
It  is  curious  to  remember  who  these  incapables  and  igno- 
ramuses were.  They  were  Lord  Grey,  Lord  Brougham, 
Lord  Althorp,  Lord  John  Russell,  Lord  Durham,  Lord 
Melbourne,  Lord  Palmerston,  Lord  Plunket,  Sir  James 
Graham,  and  the  late  Lord  Derby,  then  Mr.  Stanley.  If 
Peel  had  calmly  compared  the  intellectual  power  of  the  two 
sides  of  the  debate  as  he  did  in  the  debate  on  Sir  Francis 
Burdett's  motion  in  favour  of  Catholic  Emancipation,  he 
might  have  spared  himself  a  mistake  in  his  political  career, 
and  a  most  unwonted  and  unnecessary  display  of  passion. 
Eighteen  years  after  Peel  was  in  the  House  of  Commons 


THE   FIRST    REFORM    BATTLE  IOJ 

when  the  news  came  in  of  the  Revolution  in  France,  and  the 
flight  of  Louis  Philippe.  Among  the  first  who  received  the 
tidings  was  Mr.  Joseph  Hume,  and  Hume  hastened  to  Peel 
and  told  him  what  had  happened.  Peel's  comment  was 
significant  ;  and  it  was  just.  That,  he  said,  is  what  comes 
of  trying  to  govern  a  country  on  too  narrow  a  basis  of 
representation.  Peel  now,  at  the  time  of  this  scene  we 
describe,  was  endeavouring  with  all  the  force  of  his  eloquence 
and  his  passion  to  make  out  that  the  one  great  danger  to  a 
state  was  the  endeavour  to  broaden  its  basis  of  representa- 
tion. Peel  was  a  man  to  learn  much  in  eighteen  years.  For 
the  moment,  however,  he  stood  there  storming  against  ex- 
panded representation,  declaring  that  the  policy  of  the 
Reform  Ministry  had  even  already  made  it  no  longer  'an 
object  of  fair  ambition  '  for  '  any  man  of  equal  and  consistent 
mind  to  enter  into  the  service  of  the  Crown.'  The  scene 
was  turbulent,  and  while  Peel  was  still  thundering  forth,  amid 
one  crowd  of  members,  madly  cheering,  and  another  crowd 
madly  groaning  and  shouting,  Black  Rod  knocked  at  the 
door  to  summon  the  Commons  to  the  bar  of  the  House 
of  Lords  to  hear  the  prorogation  of  Parliament.  Peel,  all 
unconscious,  kept  on  declaiming  ;  the  House  kept  on  shout- 
ing. Black  Rod  knocked  again  and  again.  Then  at  last 
the  Speaker  and  the  House  understood  what  was  happening  ; 
Peel  was  cut  off  in  the  middle  of  his  speech,  the  Speaker 
and  the  Commons  rushed  across  the  lobby  to  the  House  of 
Lords,  and  the  Parliament  was  at  an  end. 


IOS  SIR    ROBERT    PEEL 


CHAPTER    X 

THE    BATTLE    OVER 

The  General  Elections  strengthen  the  Reformers — The  new  Bill — Pee 
leads  obstruction — The  House  of  Lords  throw  out  the  Bill — Great 
popular  excitement — The  Lords  at  last  have  to  give  way  and  the 
Bill  passes. 

'  The  Bill,  the  whole  Bill,  and  nothing  but  the  Bill '  was 
now  the  cry  of  the  country.  The  wildest  excitement  pre- 
vailed. The  general  elections  were  fought,  and  were  won 
by  the  Reformers.  The  Reformers  were  now  in  an  over- 
whelming majority.  The  Bill  was  reintroduced — at  least  the 
second  Bill  was  only  a  slight  modification  of  the  first.  Then 
the  opponents  of  the  measure  changed  their  tactics.  They 
went  in  for  delay  and  for  obstruction.  The  policy  of 
Parliamentary  obstruction,  of  which  we  have  heard  so  much 
in  later  days,  was  carried  out  with  splendid  audacity  then. 
When  the  House  got  into  Committee  and  began  to  consider 
the  separate  case  of  each  small  borough  which  it  was  pro- 
posed to  disfranchise,  the  opportunities  for  obstruction 
became  almost  unlimited.  Peel  threw  himself  energetically 
into  this  obstructive  policy.  There  was  an  organised 
system  of  obstruction.  There  was  a  regular  division  of 
labour  which  was  adjusted  and  carried  out  under  the 
directions  of  a  committee  of  which  Peel  himself  was  the 
chairman.      Between  the   12th  and  the  27th  of  July,   Sir 


THE   BATTLE   OVER  I09 

Charles  Wetherell  spoke  fifty-eight  times,  John  Wilson 
Croker  spoke  fifty-seven  times,  and  Peel  himself  spoke 
forty-eight  times.  Mr.  Molesworth  has  been  at  the  pains  in 
his  excellent  '  History  of  England  from  1830  to  1874'  to 
compile  a  list  of  the  obstructive  motions  and  divisions  which 
took  place  in  one  night  of  these  extraordinary  debates.  The 
record  is  amusing  to  read.  It  consists  of  nothing  but  a 
series  of  motions  that  the  debate  be  now  adjourned— that 
the  House  do  now  adjourn — that  the  Speaker  do  now  leave 
the  chair.  There  were  no  rules  of  procedure  then  to  limit 
the  right  of  debate  on  every  motion  of  the  kind,  and  the 
House  had  therefore  to  submit  to  an  almost  unending 
repetition  of  the  same  formal  motions  and  the  same  argu- 
ments in  their  support. 

The  Bill,  however,  passed  through  the  House  of  Com- 
mons at  last.     Its  passing  was  expedited  by  the  firm  con- 
duct of  the  Government,  who  declared  that  they  were  not 
to  be  obstructed  out  of  their  policy,  and  that  they  would, 
if  necessary,  keep  the  House   of  Commons  sitting  until 
the  coming  Christmas,   or  the   Christmas  following,   if  it 
were    necessary,    in    order    to    have     the    decision    of    the 
House  on  the  Bill.     In  the  grey  dawn  of  the  morning  of 
September   22,    1831,   the   last  division  was  taken  in  the 
House  of  Commons— the  division  after  that  on  the  third 
reading — the  division  on  the  formal  question  '  that  this  Bill 
do  now  pass.'     There  were  for  the  motion  345,  against  it 
239.     The  majority  in   favour  of  the   passing  of  the   Bill 
was   106.     Times  had  changed  indeed  with  the  House  of 
Commons   since   the   not   distant    day   when    Lord    John 
Russell  introduced  the  first  Reform  Bill. 

We  may  cut  short  the  rust  of  the  struggle,  all  the  more 
readily  because  Peel  had  little  to  do  with   it.     The   Bill. 


110  SIR    ROBERT   TEEL 

went  up  to  the  Lords.  The  Lords  threw  it  out  on  the 
motion  for  its  second  reading.  There  was  an  end  of  the 
measure  for  that  year.  The  whole  country  was  instantly 
aflame  with  passion.  There  were  riots  everywhere.  The 
castles  of  great  nobles  were  attacked  and  burnt  down. 
The  houses  of  country  landlords  who  had  opposed  the 
Bill  were  laid  in  ruins.  Bristol  and  other  cities  were  like 
places  captured  after  a  siege.  The  winter  was  made  hideous 
by  the  executions  of  the  unfortunate  and  misguided  men 
who  had  taken  a  leading  part  in  these  various  disturbances. 
It  will  never  be  known  for  certain  how  near  England  came 
to  revolution  in  these  trying  days.  Parliament  met  again 
in  December  1831,  and  Lord  John  Russell  introduced  his 
Bill — it  was  practically  the  same  Bill — for  the  third  time. 
After  much  opposition  and  obstruction,  the  Bill  passed  its 
third  reading  on  March  23,  1832,  by  a  majority  of  116. 
Then  it  went  to  the  Lords,  and  the  great  question  now  in 
the  country  was,  What  will  the  Lords  do  with  it?  The 
Lords  soon  made  it  certain  what  they  meant  to  do  with  it. 
The  Duke  of  Wellington  announced  that  his  hostility  to 
the  proposed  reform  was  as  uncompromising  as  ever.  The 
Duke,  with  characteristic  indiscretion — characteristic,  that 
is  to  say,  where  questions  of  reform  were  involved — 
announced  that  he  did  not  believe  the  King  was  in  favour 
of  the  Bill.  The  bare  suggestion  threatened  to  make  the 
King  unpopular  with  the  mass  of  the  people  all  over  the 
country.  There  was  only  one  way  by  which  to  meet  the 
determination  of  the  majority  in  the  House  of  Lords,  and 
that  was  by  the  King's  giving  his  consent  to  the  creation  of 
a  number  of  new  peers  in  order  to  overbear  and  to  swamp 
the  anti-reformers.  It  was  well  known  that  it  would  not 
be    necessary    to    create    the    new    peers.      It    would    be 


THE   UATTLE   OVER  III 

enough  that  the  King  should  give  his  consent  to  their 
creation  in  case  of  necessity.  The  necessity  would  not 
arise.  In  the  Western  wilds  of  America,  if  two  enemies 
meet  and  the  one  has  the  other  covered  by  his  revolver  in 
the  first  instance,  the  man  so  covered  does  not  attempt  to 
draw  his  weapon.  It  would  be  of  no  use.  He  would  be 
shot  before  he  could  put  his  hand  upon  it,  and  he  has  to 
come  to  terms.  It  would  have  been  so  with  the  House 
of  Lords.  If  the  new  peers  were  to  be  created  they  would 
carry  the  Bill.  What  would  be  the  use  of  compelling  the 
new  creation  ?  A  small  group  of  peers,  who  were  styled 
the  Waverers,  had  the  decision  in  their  hands.  They 
held  the  balance  of  power.  They  oscillated  now  this  way, 
now  that  way,  between  the  Ministry  and  the  Opposition. 
They  were  not  opposed  to  all  reform,  but  they  did  not  like 
the  Government  measure,  hoped  to  get  it  very  much  weak- 
ened, and  therefore  at  present  assisted  the  Tories.  The 
King  was  with  them  in  his  heart.  He  hoped  they  would 
persevere  in  their  action,  and  so  compel  Lord  Grey  to 
modify  his  terms.  The  Waverers  were,  no  doubt,  quite 
aware  of  the  King's  desires.  It  was  certain  that  if  the  King 
consented  to  the  making  of  the  new  peers,  the  Waverers 
would  at  once  withdraw  from  their  attitude  of  hostility  to 
the  Bill.  But  the  King  at  first  would  not  consent.  He 
gave  a  point-blank  refusal.  Lord  Grey  instantly  tendered 
his  resignation.  The  King  accepted  the  resignation,  and 
the  country  seemed  to  be  suddenly  brought  within  measur- 
able distance  of  civil  war. 

The  King  sent,  by  Lord  Lyndhurst's  advice,  for  the 
Duke  of  Wellington,  and  invited  him  to  form  an  adminis- 
tration. The  Duke,  for  all  his  courage  and  devotion,  did 
not  see  his  way,  and  recommended  that   Peel  should  be 


112  SIR    ROBERT    PEEL 

asked  to  try  his  hand  at  the  formation  of  a  Government. 
Peel  acted  with  firmness  and  dignity.  He  declared  that 
he  saw  no  possibility  whatever  of  his  being  able  to  form 
an  administration  which  could  hold  up  its  head  for  a 
moment,  and  to  this  announcement  he  resolutely  and  very 
properly  adhered.  Then  the  puzzled  Duke  was  urged  to 
try  again,  and  out  of  sheer  devotion  and  personal  loyalty 
to  the  Sovereign  he  did  try  again,  and  he  utterly  failed. 
The  attempt  died  in  its  birth.  The  cry  that  came  up  from 
London  and  all  parts  of  the  provinces  was  appalling.  The 
King's  carriage  was  mobbed  whenever  it  was  seen  in  the 
streets  of  the  metropolis.  At  last  William  had  to  give 
way.  He  sent  for  Lord  Grey  ;  he  consented — most  re- 
luctantly, and  with  very  bad  grace — to  the  demand  for  the 
creation  of  the  new  peers  ;  the  Waverers  thus  covered  at 
once  gave  way  ;  there  was  bitter  grumbling  in  the  House 
of  Lords,  but  the  Reform  Bill  passed  into  law.  With  the 
King's  final  assent  to  the  request  of  his  ministers  closed 
a  long  chapter  of  our  constitutional  history.  That  was  the 
last  time  when  a  struggle  took  place  between  the  personal 
predilections  of  an  English  sovereign  and  the  advice  of  his 
constitutional  ministers.  The  whole  crisis  accomplished 
two  objects  as  well  as  the  passing  of  the  Reform  Bill.  It 
practically  defined  the  limits  of  the  power  of  the  Sovereign, 
and  the  limits  of  the  power  of  the  House  of  Lords. 

The  part  which  Peel  had  played  throughout  the  whole 
struggle — if  we  except  the  one  little  outburst  of  somewhat 
undignified,  and  certainly  very  unusual,  ill-temper  which 
has  been  described  a  few  pages  back — was  consistent, 
and  was  worthy  of  his  character  and  career.  He  was  not 
even  then  opposed  to  every  possible  scheme  of  reform  ;  but 
he  honestly  regarded  Lord  John  Russell's  scheme  as  some- 


THE   BATTLE   OVER  tlj 

thing  which  the  country  ought  not  to  accept.  He  fought 
determinedly  and  conscientiously  against  it.  But  he  fought 
fairly.  Mr.  Molesworth  admits  that  Peel's  opposition  was 
'  much  more  candid  and  less  vexatious  than  that  of  most 
of  those  with  whom  he  was  associated.'  Peel  fought  his 
battle,  no  doubt,  by  obstruction  ;  but  obstruction  was  then, 
and  for  long  years  after,  a  recognised  weapon  of  Parlia- 
mentary warfare.  The  writer  of  this  volume  has  still  a 
strong  doubt  whether  it  is  well  that  a  Parliamentary  as- 
sembly should  be  too  carefully  protected  against  a  method 
of  opposition  which  practically  and  avowedly  aims  at  de- 
laying a  certain  course  of  legislation  until  the  attention  of 
the  whole  country  shall  be  forcibly  drawn  to  what  the  Par- 
liamentary assembly  is  doing.  All  Parliamentary  systems 
must  put  up  with  a  good  deal  of  anomaly ;  and  it  is  not 
always  satisfactory  for  the  best  government  of  the  country 
that  a  ruling  party  should  be  convinced  it  has  the  better 
of  the  argument,  and  has  also  had  enough  of  it,  and  that 
it  has  a  majority  at  its  back  to  better  the  better  argument. 
The  consistency  of  Peel's  conduct  is  shown  in  the  fact 
that  he  made  clear  to  all  his  own  growing  conviction  that 
reform  of  some  kind  was  inevitable.  We  cannot  know 
what  inconvenience  might  not  have  arisen  if,  backed  by 
the  King's  support,  he  had  attempted  to  form  an  adminis- 
tration when  the  Duke  of  Wellington  endeavoured  to  get 
him  to  venture  on  the  enterprise.  The  Tories  had  the 
utmost  confidence  in  his  judgment  and  his  leadership. 
They  felt  no  such  confidence  in  the  political  leadership  of 
the  Duke  of  Wellington.  If  Peel  had  believed  that  any 
good  could  be  gained  by  further  resistance,  they  would 
have  followed  him  as  far  under  lire  as  he  chose  to  lead 
them.     Another  man  might  well  have  believed,  or  at  least 

I 


I  14  SIR   ROBERT    DEEL 

have  hoped,  that  with  the  support  of  the  King  he  could 
yet  beat  back  the  advance  of  the  extreme  reformers. 
Another  man  might  have  had  the  levity  and  the  hardihood 
to  make  the  attempt.  The  result  might  have  been  political 
convulsion.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  some  of  the  great 
Liberal  leaders  were  already  asking  themselves  what  course 
they  should  have  to  take  in  the  event  of  the  King  still 
resisting  the  demands  of  the  people,  and  the  country 
breaking  into  civil  war.  Is  it  too  much  to  say  that  in 
such  a  struggle  the  King's  crown  might  have  gone  down  ? 
Hardly  too  much  to  say  that.  Is  it  too  much  to  say  that 
if  another  Tory  administration  had  been  formed  with  the 
object  of  dragooning  the  country  into  submission  to  the 
abandonment  of  reform,  the  collision  might  have  been 
instantly  provoked?  It  certainly  is  not  too  much  to  say 
that.  On  the  other  hand,  is  it  not  certain  that  if  Peel  had 
taken  office  and  tried  to  palm  off  on  the  country  an  emas- 
culated and  dwarfed  Reform  Bill,  the  popular  anger  would 
have  been  just  as  great  as  if  he  were  to  bring  in  no  scheme 
of  reform  ?  It  was  then  a  grave  crisis  in  the  history  of  the 
movement  when  the  Duke  of  Wellington  advised  that  Peel 
should  be  asked  to  form  an  Administration,  and  the  King 
acted  on  the  advice.  Peel  was  never  deceived  for  one 
moment.  He  saw  into  the  realities  of  the  situation.  He 
had  a  marvellous  power  of  distinguishing  between  the  things 
that  he  would  have  and  the  things  that  he  could  have, 
which,  strange  as  it  may  appear  at  first,  is  one  of  the 
rarest  gifts  of  statesmanship.  He  used  his  clear  distin- 
guishing power  well  on  this  great  occasion.  When  he 
refused  to  form  a  Ministry,  the  Reform  struggle  was  really 
at  an  end.  The  wildest  Tory  did  not  believe  that  there 
was  more  than  one  man  who  could  stem  the  tide,  and  that 
man  refused  to  make  the  idle  attempt. 


H5 


CHAPTER  XI 

IN    AND    OUT 

The  Irish  Church  Question — Lord  Stanley  leaves  the  Whigs — Lord 
Grey  retires  from  public  life — Lord  Melbourne  Prime  Minister — 
The  King  dismisses  Melbourne,  and  Peel  is  called  back  from  Rome 
— Again  Prime  Minister,  and  again  defeated. 

Peel  now  settled  down  to  the  work  of  a  leader  of  Opposi- 
tion in  the  House  of  Commons.  He  accepted  the  Reform 
Act  and  the  new  system.  He  knew  perfectly  well  that  there 
was  no  going  back  on  such  a  course  as  that.  But  he  set  him- 
self to  watch,  with  unfailing  scrutiny,  the  measures  which  the 
Reform  Ministry  were  about  to  bring  in.  He  had  come  into 
the  reformed  Parliament  as  member  for  Tamworth.  Among 
the  new  men  of  the  new  Parliament  was  Mr.  William  Ewart 
Gladstone,  whom  we  have  seen,  not  very  long  before,  engaged 
in  carrying  a  vote  of  censure  at  the  Oxford  Union  against 
the  Government  of  the  Duke  of  Wellington  and  Robert 
Peel  because  they  had  not  stuck  to  the  Tory  colours  and 
resisted  the  passing  of  the  measure  for  Catholic  Emanci- 
pation. 

Peel  felt  well  convinced  that  the  Reform  Ministry  would 
do  their  best  to  deserve  their  title.  He  looked  for  all 
manner  of  wild  projects  of  political  and  social  reformation. 
His  idea  and  his  policy  were  to  watch  these  measures,  and 
prevent   them    from   being   made  too  wide  and  wild  and 


Il6  SIR   ROBERT   I'EEL 

sweeping.  He  was  resolved  to  give  up  absolutely  the  old 
Tory  policy  of  resistance  to  every  proposed  change.  He 
had  never  had  much  intellectual  sympathy  with  such  a 
policy,  and  now  he  saw  that  its  game  was  quite  played  out, 
if,  indeed,  it  had  ever  been  able  to  play  much  of  a  game 
for  long.  He  saw  that  its  time  was  quite  gone  by  now.  He 
aimed  at  forming  what  might  be  called  a  Conservative  party 
—a  party  which  should  resist  sudden  and  uncalled-for 
change,  but  should  adopt  as  its  leading  principle  the  recog- 
nition of  the  fact  that  change  is  one  of  the  necessary  con- 
ditions of  a  people's  prosperity.  The  Duke  of  Wellington 
fell  in  with  Peel's  ideas— took  the  time,  in  fact,  from  Peel. 

A  season  of  energetic  reform  followed  the  passing  of  the 
Bill  of  Lord  Grey  and  Lord  John  Russell.  Peel  supported, 
although  in  a  cautious  way,  the  efforts  of  the  Government 
for  the  abolition  of  the  slave  system  in  our  West  Indian 
Colonies.  O'Connell  was  the  most  uncompromising  of  all 
the  opponents  of  slavery,  refusing  on  one  occasion  to  submit 
to  a  compromise  which  Mr.  Buxton  himself  had  been  pre- 
vailed upon  to  accept.  The  measure  for  the  abolition  of 
slavery  was  finally  carried  through,  and  will  ever  remain  one 
of  the  standing  glories  of  the  British  Empire.  There  was 
much  trouble  about  legislation  for  Ireland,  about  a  Coercion 
Bill  for  Ireland,  about  Irish  tithes,  and  about  the  Irish 
Church.  The  debate  on  the  question  relating  to  the  Irish 
Church  proved  memorable  in  the  history  of  the  Cabinet, 
and,  indeed,  in  the  history  of  the  country.  Mr.  Ward,  at 
that  time  considered  a  very  rising  member  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  brought  forward  a  motion  declaring  that  the 
Protestant  Establishment  in  Ireland  exceeded  the  spiritual 
wants  of  the  Protestant  population,  and  that,  '  it  being  the 
right  of  the  State  to  regulate  the  distribution  of  Church 


IN    AND   OUT  117 

property  in  such  a  manner  as  Parliament  might  determine, 
it  is  the  opinion  of  the  House  that  the  temporal  possessions 
of  the  Church  of  Ireland  as  now  established  ought  to  be 
reduced.'  This  motion,  which  was  commonly  believed  to 
have  been  inspired  by  Lord  Durham,  was  seconded  by 
Mr.  Grote,  the  famous  historian  of  Greece.  It  came  like 
the  bursting  of  a  shell  in  the  ranks  of  the  Administration. 
It  involved  the  whole  principle  of  existence  for  such  an 
Establishment  as  the  State  Church  of  Ireland.  Those  who 
advocated  the  maintenance  on  principle  of  the  Irish  State 
Church  could  not  possibly  admit  that  its  claim  to  support 
rested  in  any  degree  on  the  number  of  its  votaries.  They 
might,  indeed,  have  argued  with  perfect  justice,  from  their 
point  of  view,  that,  the  fewer  votaries  it  had,  the  greater 
was  the  necessity  for  maintaining  it,  and  for  enabling  it  to 
assume  a  wider  spiritual  activity.  Those,  on  the  other  hand, 
who  maintained  that  the  revenues  of  the  Church  ought  to 
be  cut  down  to  the  proportion  of  her  conversions  or  the 
numbers  of  her  worshippers,  were  only  preparing  for  the 
coming  of  the  day  when  Parliament  would  say  that  the 
Establishment,  as  such,  could  give  no  reason  for  its  existence 
at  all. 

The  'Whig  party  was  already  showing  distinct  lines  of 
cleavage.  It  was  dividing  itself  into  Whigs  and  Radicals. 
Nor  was  that  all :  a  number  of  the  Whigs  who  had  worked 
cordially  with  the  Radicals  for  the  passing  of  the  Reform  Bill 
were  now  showing  not  merely  an  inclination  to  draw  bridle, 
but  even  to  fall  back  into  the  Conservative  ranks.  It  was 
known  that  Lord  Brougham  was  trying  to  arrange  a  com- 
promise,!^ virtue  of  which  a  Commission  should  be  appointed 
to  inquire  into  the  revenues  of  the  Irish  Church,  and  their 
proportion  u>  the  numbers  of  the  population  of  Ireland, 


I  I  3  SIR    ROBERT    PEEL 

The  immediate  effect  of  all  this  was  that  Lord  Stanley,  Sir 
James  Graham,  the  Duke  of  Richmond,  and  the  Earl 
of  Ripon,  left  Lord  Grey's  Administration.  Lord  Stanley 
passed  away  for  ever  from  the  Whig  party.  To  a  more 
recent  Parliament  he  was  known  only  as  an  impetuous, 
brilliant  mouthpiece  of  Toryism.  Men  of  a  younger 
generation  could  hardly  be  brought  to  believe  that  the  Lord 
Derby  who  talked  of  his  own  Government  Reform  scheme 
in  1867  as  a  leap  in  the  dark,  was  the  Lord  Stanley  who, 
thirty-five  years  before  that  time,  had  leaped  on  the  table 
at  Brooks's  to  harangue  his  listeners  into  enthusiasm  for 
Lord  Grey's  Reform  Bill. 

Lord  Stanley  had  argued,  in  the  debate  on  Ward's 
motion,  firmly  and  broadly  for  the  Church  in  Ireland  as  a 
matter  of  principle,  political  and  religious.  Sir  Robert  Peel 
was  not  prepared  to  go  so  directly  into  the  question.  He 
did  not  take  high  ground,  it  must  be  owned.  How  unsafe 
he  felt  himself  to  be  will  be  seen  from  the  fact  that,  in  great 
part  of  his  speech,  he  fell  back  upon  the  old  argument  that 
the  Catholics  had  pledged  themselves  at  the  time  of  Eman- 
cipation that  they  would  not  ask  for  any  measure  to  affect 
the  Established  Church.  The  argument  was  feeble  in  every 
way.  No  such  compact  could  possibly  hold  good  ;  one 
generation  of  Catholics  could  not  bind  another.  More  than 
that,  no  pledge  given  by  any  number  of  Catholics  could 
bind  the  Protestants  of  England,  or  could  bind  the  House 
of  Commons.  Nothing  said  by  Grattan  in  the  name  of 
the  Irish  Catholics  could  bind  Ward  and  Grote,  who 
were  not  Catholics,  or  prevent  the  House  of  Commons 
from  doing  what  it  believed  to  be  an  act  of  justice.  Peel 
professed  himself  quite  willing  to  consider  the  expediency 
and  the  feasibility  of  redistributing  the  revenues  of  the  Irish 


IN    AND   OUT  119 

Church.  He  spoke  on  this  part  of  the  subject  like  a  practical 
statesman.  So  far  did  he  go  along  the  way  to  compromise, 
that  some  of  his  opponents  declared  that  he  ought  to  have 
accepted  the  office  in  the  Whig  Government  which  had  just 
been  left  vacant  by  the  resignation  of  Lord  Stanley.  It  was 
a  curious  case  of  crossing  on  the  way  :  the  fiery  Whig 
had  become  a  Tory  ;  the  born  Tory  was  accepting  one  of  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  Whigs.  The  one  was  a  states- 
man, the  other  was  not.  Peel's  eloquence  was  but  the 
instrument  of  his  intellect  ;  Stanley's  whole  intellect  ran  into 
his  eloquence. 

The  Government  defeated  Ward's  motion  by  the  favour- 
ite device  of  the  time  for  getting  rid  of  inconvenient  de- 
clarations of  principle — the  appointment  of  a  Commission 
to  inquire  into  the  general  subject.  The  whole  controversy 
has  been  finally  settled  so  long  ago,  that  our  only  interest  in 
it  now  is  as  regards  the  manner  in  which  it  affected  the 
statesmen  and  the  parties  of  that  day.  The  King  was  very 
angry  with  the  Ministers  for  having  gone  even  as  far  as  they 
did  in  the  way  of  disestablishment  ;  although,  of  course,  no 
one  then  dreamed  of  disestablishing  the  Irish  Church.  He 
bore  the  grudge  in  his  mind.  Another  dispute  arose  in  the 
Government  about  an  Irish  question.  A  Coercion  Bill  had 
been  brought  in.  Lord  Althorp  was  disposed  to  enter  into 
a  compromise  with  O'Connell,  and  modify  the  measure. 
Lord  Grey  would  not  hear  of  compromise.  The  two  states- 
men resigned  office;  but  Lord  Althorp  instantly  came  back, 
and  Lord  Grey  remained  out.  Lord  (hey  was  sick  of  the 
worry  of  official  life — indeed,  of  public  life  altogether. 
Recent  publications  have  shown  that  he  was  far  less  strong 
a  man  than  we  had  long  believed  him  to  be  :  that  he  had 
some   almost   romantic   weaknesses  of  character;  that  he 


120  SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 

could  be  played  upon  by  skilful  hands.  It  is  probable  that 
his  was  for  the  most  part  but  a  reflected  greatness  ;  the 
shining  on  him  and  through  him  of  the  light  of  that  constel- 
lation of  genius,  eloquence,  and  statesmanship  amid  which 
he  had  moved  so  long.  He  disappears  from  this  history. 
He  did  not  live  long  after  his  retirement  ;  we  shall  not  see 
him  any  more. 

The  Ministry  was  reorganised,  with  Lord  Melbourne, 
whom  we  have  already  known  as  William  Lamb,  for  its  head. 
Lord  Althorp  remained  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  and 
leader  of  the  House  of  Commons.  Lord  Melbourne  had 
not  much  of  the  temper  of  the  reformer  in  him.  He  was 
an  indolent  man,  with  some  talents,  with  a  potentiality  of 
statesmanship  in  him  which  energy  might  have  realised,  and 
with  a  not  inconsiderable  critical  faculty  ;  his  judgment  in 
most  matters  more  likely  to  be  right  than  wrong.  The 
King  had  long  had  a  grudge  against  the  Whig  Ministers  for 
what  he  considered  their  falling  away  on  the  Church  ques- 
tion, and  he  suddenly  and  publicly  unbosomed  himself  of 
his  grievance  in  a  public  declaration.  It  was  on  the  occa- 
sion of  a  birthday  address  delivered  to  him  by  a  deputation 
of  Irish  prelates  that  William  IV.  poured  forth  his  soul.  He 
declared,  in  the  most  impassioned  manner,  and  with  tears 
running  down  his  cheeks,  that,  come  what  would,  he  was 
resolved  to  stand  by  the  Church.  This  oration  was  nothing 
short  of  a  public  censure  on  his  Whig  Ministers.  Everybody 
felt  sure  that  something  must  come  of  it ;  and  the  something 
came  very  soon.  Lord  Althorp's  father  died  ;  Lord  Althorp 
thereupon  became  Earl  Spencer,  and  was  removed  to  the 
upper  House.  Some  administrative  rearrangements  were 
made  necessary  by  this  change,  and  when  Lord  Melbourne 
went  to  the  King  to  talk  over  them,  William  bluntly  informed 


IN   AND   OUT  121 

him  that  he  did  not  propose  to  go  on  with  his  present  advisers 
and  that  he  had  sent  for  the  Duke  of  Wellington.  Lord 
Melbourne  was  honestly  delighted  to  be  out  of  the  whole 
affair.  The  strength  of  the  Administration,  such  as  it  was, 
mainly  depended  on  the  influence  of  Lord  Althorp  over  the 
House  of  Commons.  The  condition  of  things  would  be 
very  different  indeed  with  Lord  Althorp  in  the  House  of 
Lords.  The  King  himself  gladly  seized  on  this  fact  as 
another  reason  for  getting  rid  of  his  Whig  advisers. 

This  was  indeed  a  crisis.  The  King's  final  communica- 
tion to  Lord  Melbourne  was  dated  'Pavilion,  Brighton, 
November  14,  1834.' 

Sir  Robert  Peel  had  left  England  for  Rome  exactly  a 
month  before  the  date  of  the  King's  letter.  The  Duke  of 
Wellington  strongly  advised  the  King  not  to  think  of  any 
Prime  Minister  but  some  statesman  who  should  be  in  the 
House  of  Commons.  Of  course,  he  advised  the  King  to 
invite  Peel  to  form  an  Administration,  and  he  offered,  if  it 
would  make  matters  more  easy,  in  the  meanwhile  to  hold  the 
offices  of  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury  and  Home  Secretary  until 
Peel  should  return  to  form  a  Ministry  for  himself.  Nothing 
could  be  more  unfair,  the  Duke  said,  than  to  call  upon  Peel 
to  put  himself  at  the  head  of  a  Government  which  another 
individual  should  have  formed.  So  a  messenger  was  sent 
in  hot  haste  to  Rome,  to  bear  his  Majesty's  command  for 
Peel's  instant  return  to  London. 

Peel  had  left  England  with  his  wife  and  his  daughter 
'  little  foreseeing  the  probability  of  my  sudden  recall  on  any 
ground  similar  to  that  on  which  it  took  place,  and  having 
had  no  communication  previous  to  my  departure  with  the 
I  Hike  of  Wellington  or  any  other  person  respecting  the 
position  and  prospects  of  the  Administration  which  existed 


122  SIR    ROBERT    PEEL 

at  the  time  of  my  departure.'  On  the  night  of  Tuesday, 
November  25,  Peel  and  his  wife  and  daughter  had  just 
returned  from  a  ball  at  the  Duchess  of  Torlonia's,  in  Rome, 
when  the  letters  were  put  into  his  hands  which  summoned 
him  back  to  England  to  be  Prime  Minister.  He  had 
already  seen  in  the  newspapers  the  account  of  the  death  of 
Lord  Althorp's  father  ;  but,  although  he  assumed  as  a  matter 
of  course  that  the  event  would  render  necessary  some  alter- 
ation in  the  arrangements  of  the  Government,  he  did  not 
expect  that  it  would  lead  to  the  practical  dismissal  of  the 
Whig  Ministry.  He  was  just  about  to  leave  for  Naples,  and 
had  made  all  the  arrangements  for  the  journey  there,  and 
back  to  Rome.  Of  course,  all  these  plans  were  now  knocked 
to  pieces,  and  Peel  sent  off  a  letter  in  which  he  '  begged  most 
respectfully  to  assure  your  Majesty  that  he  will  proceed  on 
his  journey  to  England  without  a  moment's  delay.' 

Sir  Robert  Peel's  journey  home  may  well  inspire  the 
man  of  our  times  with  a  new  shrug  of  complacency  over 
the  improved  conditions  of  modern  civilisation.  Of  course, 
the  whole  distance  between  Rome  and  Calais  had  to  be 
traversed  by  carriage.  Sir  Robert  Peel,  in  fact,  travelled 
from  Rome  to  London  in  exactly  the  same  way  as  Con- 
stantine  had  travelled  from  York  to  Rome  some  fifteen 
hundred  years  before.  All  that  horses  and  sails  could  do 
for  Peel,  sent  for  to  become  Prime  Minister  of  England, 
was  done  for  Constantine,  sent  for  to  be  Emperor  at  Rome ; 
and  nothing  more  could  be  done  for  Peel  than  was  done 
for  Constantine.  Peel  had  to  take  the  precaution  of  pro- 
viding himself  with  a  special  and  separate  passport,  so  that, 
in  case  his  wife  should  be  unable  to  stand  the  fatigue  of  the 
continuous  travel,  he  might  be  in  a  position  to  pursue  his 
journey  alone.     We  find  it  very  hard  now  to  bring  home  to 


IN   AND   OUT  123 

our  minds  the  idea  of  a  great  English  statesman  having 
to  provide  against  the  possibility  of  his  being  stopped  in  a 
journey  over  the  Continent  because  of  his  having  taken 
passports  for  himself  and  his  wife  together,  and  his  wife 
being  unable  to  accompany  him  in  his  unbroken  travel. 
The  pair  began  their  journey  at  Rome  about  three  o'clock  on 
the  26th  of  November.  They  arrived  at  Dover  on  the  evening 
of  the  8th  of  December.  They  had  travelled  eight  nights  out 
of  the  twelve,  and  halted  the  other  four  only  because  they 
were  not  able  to  get  on.  It  may  interest  modern  readers, 
who  are  acquainted  with  the  comforts  of  the  train  dc  luxe 
and  the  '  club  train  '  to  Italy,  to  know  what  were  the  causes 
which  made  it  necessary  for  Peel  to  submit  to  these  stop- 
pages on  his  way.  One  night  was  spent  at  Massa,  because 
the  way  was  barred  by  a  rapid  torrent  which  could  not  be 
ferried  over  in  the  dark ;  one  night  at  Susa,  as  the  cross- 
ing of  Mont  Cenis  could  not  be  begun  until  daybreak  ; 
one  night  at  Lyons,  which  had  just  been  declared  in  a  state 
of  siege,  and  where  the  travellers  had  to  remain  until  all 
manner  of  formalities  about  their  passports  had  been  gone 
through ;  and,  finally,  one  night  in  Paris,  where  they  were 
expecting  letters  which  it  was  necessary  they  should  get 
before  going  on  to  London.  Peel  made  the  best  of  every- 
thing, and  observes  in  his  Memoirs  that  the  long  journey 
had  the  advantage  of  giving  him  ample  time  for  considering 
his  future  action  'coolly  and  without  interruption.'  He 
arrived  in  London  very  early  on  the  morning  of  December  9, 
having  travelled  all  night  from  Dover  ;  and  he  at  once  pre- 
sented himself  to  the  King.  He  told  William  straightway 
that  he  had  no  hesitation  in  undertaking  to  form  an 
Administration. 

I 'eel  was  acting  simply  in  obedience  to  a  characteristic 


124  SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 

and  a  dominant  sense  of  duty.  He  felt  that  he  could  not 
leave  the  King  in  a  position  of  difficulty.  He  felt  that  he 
could  not  leave  the  King  '  to  the  humiliation,  through  my 
refusal  of  office,  of  inviting  his  dismissed  servants  to  resume 
their  appointments.'  But  he  had  little  taste  for  the  work 
just  then.  To  begin  with,  he  did  not  approve  of  the 
manner  in  which  the  late  Ministers  had  been  dismissed. 
He  did  not  think  Lord  Althorp's  removal  to  the  House  of 
Lords  was  reason  enough  for  the  dismissal  of  the  Ministry. 
He  did  not  think  the  supposed  objection  of  the  King  to 
Lord  John  Russell,  as  leader  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
was  reason  enough  for  breaking  up  the  Administration.  He 
did  not  think  the  time  was  fitting  for  the  breaking  up  of  an 
Administration  ;  and  if  it  had  to  be  broken  up,  he  would 
have  preferred  that  the  event  had  been  brought  about  by 
any  other  cause  than  the  personal  intervention  of  the 
Sovereign.  Moreover,  he  had  very  little  hope  indeed  that 
the  Ministry  which  he  could  form  would  be  strong  and 
stable — would  even  command  such  a  majority  in  the  House 
of  Commons  as  would  enable  it  to  carry  on  the  business  of  the 
country.  These  were  not  encouraging  auspices  under  which 
to  make  the  attempt ;  but  Peel  felt  constrained  by  a  sense 
of  public  duty— at  all  events,  of  duty  to  the  Sovereign — 
to  put  all  personal  considerations  aside,  and  go  at  the  dis- 
tasteful and  unhopeful  work. 

Peel  began  by  inviting  Lord  Stanley  and  Sir  James 
Graham  to  join  his  Administration.  Both  declined  the 
invitation.  Sir  James  Graham  promised,  although  he  could 
not  take  office,  to  lend  to  Peel  all  the  support  he  could, 
consistently  with  his  own  principles  and  opinions.  Lord 
Stanley  wrote  to  Peel  a  long  and  a  very  interesting  letter. 
He  pointed  out  that  between  Peel  and  himself  there  was, 


IN    AND  OUt  125 

and  always  had  been,  a  complete  difference  of  opinion  on 
almost  every  public  question,  except  alone  as  regarded  the 
Established  Church.  He  reminded  Peel  that,  so  lately  as 
on  the  occasion  of  Lord  Grey's  retirement  from  office,  the 
Duke  of  Wellington  seized  the  opportunity  of  passing  in 
review  the  whole  policy  of  the  Whig  Ministry,  and  con- 
demned, not  merely  the  Reform  Act,  but  all  the  home  and 
foreign  policy  of  Lord  Grey's  Government.  It  was  true,  as 
Lord  Stanley  admitted,  that  Peel  himself  had  passed  no 
such  sweeping  censure  on  Lord  Grey's  measures.  But  he 
had  opposed  many  of  them  in  detail,  and  some  of  them  in 
principle,  and  he  had  objected  to  the  whole  scope  and 
tendency  of  the  foreign  policy.  '  A  few  months  only  have 
elapsed ;  the  Duke  of  Wellington  is  the  person  who,  on  the 
dissolution  of  Lord  Melbourne's  Cabinet,  received  the  first 
mark  of  his  Majesty's  confidence ;  this  circumstance  alone 
must  stamp  upon  the  Administration  about  to  be  formed 
the  impress  of  his  name  and  principles.'  '  You  will  not 
mistake  me,'  Lord  Stanley  went  on,  '  if  I  say  that  private 
feeling,  as  well  as  political  judgment,  alike  disincline  me 
to  the  adoption  of  this  proposal.'  Then  follows  a  weighty 
sentence,  which  those  who  remember  Lord  Stanley  can 
almost  think  they  hear  him  delivering :  '  The  sudden  con- 
version of  long  political  opposition  into  the  most  intimate 
alliance,  no  general  coincidence  of  principle,  except  upon  one 
point,  being  proved  to  exist  between  us,  would  shock  public 
opinion,  would  be  ruinous  to  my  own  character,  and  in- 
jurious to  the  Government  which  you  seek  to  form.'  Nor 
can  we  refrain  from  quoting  yet  another  sentence  :  '  If  any 
beneficial  moral  effect  were  produced  by  my  separation  from 
Lord  Grey  and  my  former  colleagues,  and  my  abandonment 
of  office  for  the  sake  of  conscience  and  principle,  that  effect 


126  SIR    ROBERT   PEEL 

would  be  wholly  destroyed  by  my  speedy  return  to  office 
with  their  political  opponents.' 

Sir  Robert  Peel  then  formed  the  best  Ministry  he  could. 
He  undertook  the  duties  of  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury  and 
Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer.  Lord  Lyndhurst  was  Lord 
Chancellor,  and  the  Duke  of  Wellington  became  Foreign 
Secretary.  Some  new  names  come  out  in  this  Administra- 
tion. Mr.  Gladstone  was  appointed  Junior  Lord  of  the 
Treasury;  Winthrop  Mackworth  Praed,  the  young  Tory, 
poet  of  society,  and  Sidney  Herbert,  afterwards  a  leading 
statesman  in  the  House  of  Commons,  were  made  joint 
Secretaries  of  the  Board  of  Control.  It  was  held  necessary, 
on  various  grounds  of  public  convenience,  that  an  appeal 
should  be  made  to  the  country,  and,  accordingly,  Parliament 
was  dissolved.  Peel  issued  an  address  to  his  constituents 
of  Tamworth  which  was  in  itself  an  important  political 
manifesto.  At  that  time,  and  down  to  the  end  of  his 
career,  Peel  made  it  a  habit  to  convert  his  electioneering 
addresses  into  political  manifestations.  These  documents 
rise  altogether  above  the  level  of  electioneering  literature ; 
they  are  historical  publications.  In  this  particular  address 
Peel  frankly  announced  that  he  considered  the  Reform  Bill 
a  '  final  and  irrevocable'  settlement  of  a  great  constitutional 
question — 'a  settlementjyhich  no^rLendJLo  the,  pence  and 
order  of  the  country  would  attempt  to  disturb,  either  In- 
direct or  by  insidious  means.'  '  I  never  will  admit,'  he  said, 
'  that  I  have  been,  either  before  or  after  the  Reform  Bill, 
the  defender  of  abuses  or  the  enemy  of  judicious  reforms.' 
Of  course,  when  Pppjjjj^rribprl  the_Reform  Act  as  a  final 
and  irrevocable  settlement  of  a  great  constitutional  question, 
he  did  not  mean  to  say  that,  in  his  opinion,  Reform  was 
never  to  march  a  step  further.     Peel  was  one  of  the  last 


IX    AND   OUT  127 

men  to  believe  in  the  possibility  of  any  one  generation 
settling  the  business  of  all  succeeding  generations.  He  no 
more  meant  to  convey  the  impression  that  Reform  had 
spoken  its  last  word,  than  Lord  John  Russell  did  when, 
addressing  himself  merely  to  the  business  of  the  passing 
day,  he  spoke  of  '  finality  '  in  reforming  legislation.  What 
Peel  meant  was,  that  the  decision  of  the  Parliament  and 
the  people  against  the  old,  unreformed  system  was  final 
and  irrevocable.  J'estigia  nulla  rctrorsum.  There  was  nc 
going  back,  and  no  patriotic  Englishman  must  endeavour, 
openly  or  secretly,  to  restore  the  system  which  the  country' 
had  sentenced  and  doomed.  Peel  had  already,  in  the 
House  of  Commons,  expressed  the  same  conviction.  He 
spoke  in  the  debate  on  the  Address  in  the  first  session  of 
the  first  Parliament  assembled  under  the  Reform  Act. 
This  was  in  January,  1833.  He  then  declared  that  he  con- 
sidered the  question  of  Reform  as  finally  and  irrevocably 
disposed  of.  He  added,  that  he  was  for  '  reforming  every 
institution  that  really  required  reform,  but  he  was  for  doing 
it  gradually,  dispassionately,  and  deliberately,  in  order  that 
the  reform  might  he  lasting.'  Even  already,  then,  Peel  had 
distinctly  severed  himself  from  the  old-fashioned  Toryism. 
The  declaration  of  the  Duke  of  Wellington  with  regard 
to  Reform  made  in  the  September  of  1830  was  already  a 
curious  anachronism.  The  Duke  of  Wellington  himself 
would  not  discourse  in  such  a  spirit  to  the  House  of  Lords 
of  1834. 

Parliament  was  dissolved  in  December  1834,  and  the 
new  Parliament  met  in  February  1835.  The  result  was 
unsatisfactory  to  the  Government.  The  Ccons^oiiiiy^s.  had 
gained,  indeed,  and  gained  very  considerably  in  strength, 
but  they  were  still  in  a  minority. When  the  first  Reformed 


128  SIR    ROBERT    PEEL 

Parliament  met  the  Conservatives  were  in  a  perfectly  miser- 
able minority.  The  Liberals  were  estimated  to  have  486 
votes,  and  the  Conservatives  only  172.  Now  there  was 
indeed  a  change,  for  the  Conservatives  had  273,  and  the 
Liberals  only  380.  This  was  an  advance  to  be  sure ;  but,  at  the 
same  time,  it  was  rather  a  tantalising  advance.  A  majority 
of  100  is  just  as  good  as  a  majority  of  200.  Once 
the  majority  gets  above  that  level  when  a  chance  may 
pull  it  down,  it  does  not  matter,  so  far  as  opponents  are 
concerned,  what  its  precise  numbers  may  be.  Sir  Robert 
Peel  saw  at  once  that  he  was  doomed  to  a  dreary  and  a 
hopeless  task — dreary  because  hopeless.  He  was  at  the 
mercy  of  the  Opposition.  The  Liberals  could  batter  about 
his  Administration  in  any  way  they  pleased.  It  is  hardly 
possible  to  imagine  a  situation  more  trying  to  a  sensitive  and 
high-spirited  statesman,  than  to  have  to  carry  on  a  Govern- 
ment while  his  followers  are  in  a  minority,  and  with  the 
bitter  knowledge  that,  do  what  he  will,  his  enemies  have  the 
power  at  any  moment  to  undo  his  work. 

The  Opposition  soon  gave  the  Government  a  taste  of 
their  quality.  Parliament  met  on  February  19,  and  the  first 
trial  of  strength  was  on  the  election  of  Speaker.  The 
Government  candidate  was  beaten  by  a  majority  of  10. 
This  was  a  very  small  majority,  all  things  considered  ;  and 
there  was  a  peculiarity  about  its  constitution  which  was 
significant,  and  which  exhibited  a  political  phenomenon 
very  familiar  indeed  in  more  recent  times.  It  was  the  Irish 
votes  that  decided  the  triumph  of  the  Liberal  candidate. 
The  House  of  Commons  then  knew  that  the  Liberals  had 
secured  the  support  of  O'Connell  and  his  party. 

Bad  began  for  Peel,  and  worse  remained  behind.  The 
Government  were  defeated  in  the  debate  on  the  Address  in 


IN    AND   OUT  I29 

the  House  of  Commons,  on  an  amendment  censuring  them 
for  the  dissolution.  The  majority  against  them  was  still 
very  small — only  5  ;  and  again  the  victory,  such  as  it  was, 
showed  itself  to  be  the  work  of  the  Irish  vote.  Still,  the 
defeat  was  annoying,  and  even  damaging.  Hardly  less 
damaging  was  a  victory  which  Peel  won,  by  the  help  of 
Lord  John  Russell  and  some  of  the  Liberals,  over  his 
own  followers,  on  a  motion  for  the  repeal  of  the  malt  tax. 
Then,  again,  the  strong  opinions  expressed  in  the  House  of 
Commons  as  to  the  appointment  to  the  Embassy  in  St. 
Petersburg  of  the  Marquis  of  Londonderry,  who  had  made 
himself  highly  unpopular,  both  by  his  denunciations  of  the 
English  reformers  and  the  Polish  patriots,  rendered  it  neces- 
sary that  Lord  Londonderry  should  resign  the  position. 
This,  of  course,  was  a  vexatious  blow  to  the  Ministry.  Peel 
bore  up  with  courage  and  equanimity.  He  did  not  believe 
that  his  duty  would  allow  him  to  resign  office  merely  because 
of  goads  or  pin-pricks  like  these.  He  did  not  like  to  advise 
another  dissolution,  although  another  dissolution  would 
in  all  probability  tend  to  strengthen  his  hands.  He  kept 
bringing  in  Bills  for  what  may  be  called  moderate  reform  in 
various  departments,  especially  in  the  ecclesiastical  courts 
and  Church  discipline.  He  met  the  attacks,  the  questionings, 
and  the  obstruction  of  his  antagonists  with  consummate 
skill  and  coolness.  His  skill  as  a  leader  was  never  more 
conspicuously  shown  than  during  his  short  and  precarious 
term  of  office.  Now,  also,  he  had  again  an  opponent  worthy 
of  his  weapon.  Now,  once  again,  the  strife  of  parties  in  the 
I  [ouse  of  Commons  had  become  typified— a  great  political 
and  oratorical  duel  between  the  two  leaders.  Lord  John 
Russell,  called  to  the  responsibility  of  commanding  the 
forces  of  Opposition,  had  suddenly  developed  a  wholly  un 

K 


130  SIR    ROBERT    PEEL 

expected  skill  and  power  in  debate.  He  showed  himself 
well  able  to  hold  his  own,  even  against  the  best  efforts  of 
Sir  Robert  Peel.  Many  years  later,  Lord  John  Russell  him- 
self wrote  that  he  never  had  so  hard  a  task  to  perform  as 
the  task  of  leading  his  party  through  all  that  keen  series  of 
encounters  with  the  skill  and  experience  of  Peel.  But  the 
struggle  had  to  come  to  an  end.  Peel  fought  his  losing 
battle  as  gallantly  and  brilliantly  as  Napoleon  conducted  his 
retreat  before  the  advancing  armies  of  the  Allies.  But  the 
end  was  certain  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  In  April, 
1S35,  Lord  John  Russell  carried  against  the  Government  a 
motion  to  the  effect  that  the  surplus  revenues  of  the  Irish 
Church  ought  to  be  appropriated  to  general  moral  and 
religious  purposes.  The  motion  was  carried  by  285  votes 
against  258.  This  was  the  coup  de  grace.  Peel  resigned, 
and  passed  into  Opposition  once  again. 


i3i 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE     IRISH     FAMINE 

Lord  Melbourne  Prime  Minister — Death  of  William  IV.  and  accession 
of  Queen  Victoria — The  Jamaica  Act — The  ladies  of  the  bed- 
chamber— The  Whigs  fall,  and  Peel  comes  in  again — The  Corn 
Law  question  comes  up — The  Irish  famine. 

Lord  Melbourne's  second  Administration  was  very  like 
Lord  Melbourne's  first,  with,  however,  one  remarkable 
exception — Lord  Brougham  was  not  a  member  of  it.  From 
that  time  forth,  during  all  his  long  career,  he  never  held  office 
in  any  Government.  There  has  been  much  speculation  as 
to  the  reason  why  the  Whigs  not  only  deprived  themselves  of 
the  assistance  of  Lord  Brougham's  great  eloquence,  influence, 
and  energy,  but  turned  these  powers  against  themselves  ;  and 
it  was  even  at  one  time  conjectured  that  there  were  seasons 
in  Brougham's  life  when  his  mental  faculties  were  not 
altogether  under  his  control.  But  there  does  not  seem  any 
reason  to  hazard  any  such  conjecture,  or  to  go  beyond  Lord 
Melbourne's  spoken  and  written  explanations.  Before  there 
seemed  any  immediate  prospect  of  the  Whigs  coming  back 
to  office,  Melbourne  had  made  up  his  mind  that  he  would 
have  nothing  more  to  do  with  Brougham.  In  fact,  Brougham 
was  a  man  with  whom  nobody  could  get  on.  He  had  an 
overbearing  and  even  ferocious  temper,  and  he  had  no  idea 
of  dignity,  propriety,  or  prudence.     He  used  to  stump  the 

K  2 


I32  SIR    ROBERT   PEEL 

country  after  the  fashion  of  O'Conncll,  and  deliver  harangues 
such  as,  according  to  the  etiquette  of  that  time,  an  ex-Lord 
Chancellor  was  not  supposed  to  deliver.  He  was  always 
getting  into  quarrels,  and  always  making  compromising 
strokes  off  his  own  bat.  Cast  off  by  the  Whigs,  he  for  a 
time  forbore  to  attack  them,  but  after  this  season  of  patience 
he  joined  with  Lord  Lyndhurst  in  harassing,  denouncing, 
and  tormenting  them. 

Sir  Robert  Peel  played  a  steady  and  a  waiting  game. 
He  dealt  fairly,  and  even  generously,  with  the  Ministers  ;  but 
he  was  biding  his  time.    The  King  hated  his  present  advisers, 
and  made  no  secret  of  his  hatred.     For  a  long  time  he  would 
not  even  invite  one  of  them  to  dinner.     At  length  he  relaxed, 
and  gave  them  all  an  invitation,  expressing  on  one  occasion 
a  hope,  in  his  letter  of  invitation,  that  they  would  each  man 
drink  two  bottles  of  wine.     Peel  and  Lord  John  Russell 
felt  a  kind  of  dislike  and  distrust  of  each  other.     Both  were 
shy  and  sensitive  men,  and  for  that  reason  were  kept  apart. 
That  fact,  however,  did  not  prevent  each  from  paying  ready 
and  generous  tribute  to  the  abilities  of  the  other.    Lord  John 
Russell  wrote  once  in  positively  enthusiastic  admiration  of  a 
speech  of  Peel's  which  went  near  to  shattering  the  Whig 
Administration.     In  truth,  the  Ministers  were  terribly  over- 
weighted in  both  Houses  so  far  as  debating  powers  were 
concerned.     In  the  House  of  Lords  they  had  Brougham 
and  Lyndhurst  to  encounter,  and  Lord  Melbourne  was  but 
a  poor  speaker.     In  the  House  of  Commons  they  had  to 
bear   the  attacks  of  Peel,   Graham,   and   afterwards    Lord 
Stanley,  and  they  had  only  one  man  of  first-class  debating 
power — Lord  John  Russell.      Peel  was  gradually  forming  a 
strong   Conservative   party — not   a   Tory   party.      He   was 
making  himself  strong  in  the  country  as  well  as  in  Parliament. 


THE   IRISH   FAMINE  133 

He  foresaw  the  time  when  he  should  be  able  to  command  a 
majority  in  the  House  of  Commons. 

Meantime  an  event  occurred  which  had  much  effect 
on  the  conditions  of  government  in  Great  Britain.  On 
June  20,  1837,  William  IV.  died,  and  Queen  Victoria 
came  to  the  throne.  The  Duke  of  'Wellington  thought  the 
accession  of  a  woman  to  the  sovereign's  place  would  be 
fatal  to  the  present  hopes  of  the  Tories.  '  Peehj,  he  said, 
{ has  no  manners,  and  I  have  no  small  talk.'  He  seemed  to 
take  it  for  granted  that  the  new  Sovereign  would  choose  her 
Ministers  as  a  school-girl  chooses  her  companions.  He  did 
not  know,  did  not  foresee,  that  with  the  accession  of  Queen 
Victoria  the  real  reign  of  constitutional  government  in 
these  islands  was  to  begin.  The  late  King  had  advanced 
somewhat  on  the  ways  of  his  predecessors,  but  his  rule  was 
still,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a  personal  rule.  With  the 
accession  of  Victoria  the  system  of  personal  rule  came  to  an 
end. 

The  elections  which  at  that  time  were  necessary  on  the 
coming  of  a  new  sovereign  went  slightly  in  favour  of  the 
Tories.  The  Whigs  had  many  troubles.  They  were  not 
reformers  enough  for  the  great  body  of  their  supporters. 
They  made,  or,  perhaps,  one  should  rather  say,  accepted, 
many  great  and  noble  reforms  in  political  and  social  affairs ; 
but  all  these  had  to  be  pressed  upon  them  from  without. 
The  Radicals  had  split  off  from  them.  They  could  not 
manage  O'Connell.  The  Chartist  fire  was  already  burning. 
There  was  many  a  serious  crisis  in  foreign  policy — in  China 
and  in  Egypt,  for  example.  The  Canadian  Rebellion 
and  the  mission  of  Lord  Durham  involved  the  Whigs  in 
fresh  anxieties,  and  laid  them  open  to  new  attacks  from 
their  enemies.     On  the  top  of  all  came  some  disturbances, 


134  STR    ROBERT   1'EEL 

of  a  legislative  rather  than  an  insurrectionary  kind,  in 
Jamaica,  and  the  Government  felt  called  upon  to  bring  in  a 
Bill  to  suspend  for  five  years  the  Constitution  of  the  island. 
A  Liberal  and  reforming  Ministry  bringing  in  a  Bill  to 
suspend  a  Constitution  is  in  a  highly  awkward  and  dan- 
gerous position.  Peel  saw  his  opportunity,  and  opposed 
the  Bill.  The  Government  won  by  a  majority  of  only  5. 
Lord  Melbourne  accepted  the  situation,  and  resigned.  The 
Queen  sent  for  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  and  he,  of  course, 
advised  her  to  send  for  Peel. 

When  Peel  came,  the  young  Queen  told  him  with  all 
the  frankness  of  a  girl  that  she  was  sorry  to  part  with  her 
late  Ministers,  and  that  she  did  not  disapprove  of  their 
conduct,  but  that  she  felt  bound  to  act  in  accordance  with 
constitutional  usages.  Peel  accepted  the  task  of  forming 
an  Administration.  And  then  came  the  famous  dispute 
known  as  'the  Bedchamber  Question'— the  question  de 
jupons.  The  Queen  wished  to  retain  her  ladies-in-waiting  ; 
Peel  insisted  that  there  must  be  some  change.  Two  of 
these  ladies  were  closely  related  to  Whig  statesmen  whose 
policy  was  diametrically  opposed  to  that  of  Peel  on  no  less 
important  a  question  than  the  government  of  Ireland. 
Peel  insisted  that  he  could  not  undertake  to  govern  under 
such  conditions.  The  Queen,  acting  on  the  advice  of 
her  late  Ministers,  would  not  give  way.  The  whole  dispute 
created  immense  excitement  at  the  time.  There  was  a 
good  deal  of  misunderstanding  on  both  sides.  It  was 
quietly  settled,  soon  after,  by  a  compromise  which  the 
late  Prince  Consort  suggested,  and  which  admitted  that 
Peel  had  been  in  the  right.  For  the  moment,  however, 
it  became  a  stormy  controversy,  and  even  Peel  himself 
declaimed  over  it  in  language  of  almost  extravagant  rhe- 


THE   IRISH   FAMIN]  1 35 

torical  exaggeration.  Its  importance  to  us  now  is  that,  as 
Peel  would  not  give  way,  the  Whigs  had  to  come  back 
again,  and  they  came  back  discredited  and  damaged, 
having,  as  Mr.  Molesworth  puts  it,  got  back  '  behind  the 
petticoats  of  the  ladies-in-waiting.' 

'We  may  pass  rapidly  over  the  remaining  history  of  the 
Whig  Ministry.  The  Anti-Corn  Law  agitatation  had  begun, 
and  the  Whigs  made  some  tentative,  ineffective  efforts  to  go 
a  little  way  in  the  direction  of  the  new  movement.  Peel 
soon  saw  that  their  force  was  spent — that  his  time  had 
come.  He  encountered  them  with  a  direct  declaration 
of  want  of  confidence,  and  defeated  thr-m  hy  nr|p  vni-p 
Ministers  resigned,  and  appealed  to  the  country,  and  the 
result  of  the  general  elections  brought  Peel  back  to  office, 
and  something  more  than  office — it  brought  him  back  to 
power.  He  was  at  the  head  of  a  majority.  Lord  Melbourne 
resigned.  Peel  formed  an  Administration  in  which  he  had 
the  co-operation  of  Lord  Stanley  and  Sir  James  Graham. 
The  elections  which  brought  Peelinto  power  brought 
Richard  Cobden  for  the  first  time  into  Parliament  ;  and  the 
great  Free-trade  struggle  was  about  to  begin. 

The  story  of  Sir  Robert  Peel's  Administration  in  its 
dealing  with  the  Corn  Laws  is  a  story  of  bitter  and  pas- 
sionate controversy.  Peel's  enemies  tell  it  in  the  shortest 
way.  Peel,  they  say,  came  into  power  pledged  to  retain  the 
Corn  Laws,  and  in  1846  he  repealed  them.  Let  us  examine 
the  history  of  that  eventful  period  a  little  more  carefully. 
One  part  of  the  controversy  at  least  lias  been  entirely  swept 
out  of  the  way.  No  one  now  wants  to  offer  or  to  listen  to 
any  argument  for  or  against  the  principle  of  Free  Trade. 
What  we  are  concerned  in  is  the  personal  conduct  of  Peel 
in  the  decisive  part  which  he  took. 


\ 


I36  SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 

What  were  the  Corn  Laws,  to  begin  with?  Old  abuses 
are  so  soon  forgotten  that  it  is  quite  possible  some  of  the 
younger  generation  may  have  only  a  very  vague  idea  as  to 
what  the  Corn  Laws  actually  were.  The  Corn  Law  of  181 5 
was  a  copy  of  the  Corn  Law  of  1670 — so  little  had  economic 
science  grown  in  England  during  all  those  years.  The 
Corn  Law  of  1670  imposed  a  duty  on  the  importation  of 
foreign  grain  which  amounted  almost  literally  to  a  prohibi- 
tion. It  was  lawful  to  export  wheat  on  payment  of  is.  per 
quarter  Customs  duty  ;  but  the  importation  of  wheat  was 
virtually  prohibited  until  the  price  of  our  own  wheat  at 
home  had  risen  to  80^.  a  quarter.  Such  legislation  was, 
of  course,  founded  on  the  principle  that  the  corn  grew  for 
the  benefit  of  the  grower  in  the  first  instance,  and  that, 
until  a  handsome  profit  had  been  secured  to  him,  the 
public  had  no  right  to  any  reduction  in  the  cost  of  food. 
When  the  harvest  was  good,  then  the  grower  began  to  get 
frightened,  and  he  appealed  to  Parliament  to  protect  him 
against  the  disaster  of  having  to  sell  his  corn  any  cheaper 
than  in  a  year  of  scarcity  or  even  of  famine.  It  has  been 
said,  and  said  well,  that  '  the  history  of  agricultural  distress 
is  the  history  of  agricultural  abundance.'  This  might  seem 
at  first  a  paradox,  but  it  is  not  so  ;  it  is  a  truth  that  goes  to 
the  very  heart  of  Protection.  The  Corn  Law  of  1815  was 
hurried  through  Parliament.  It  re-enacted  the  provisions 
of  the  former  measure,  and  declared  the  practical  prohibi- 
tion of  the  entry  of  grain  from  foreign  ports  until  the  price 
of  our  own  corn  here  at  home  had  reached  the  magical 
figure  of  8o.y.  a  quart-pr.  .-"Rut  the  commercial  and  manu- 
facturing classes  had  had  some  education  forced  on  them 
in  the  meantime.  Great  manufacturing  towns  like  Man- 
chester had  always  been  for  Free  Trade.      They  wanted 


THE    IRISH   FAMINE  1 3? 

to  sell  their  goods  in  every  market  where  buyers  were  to  be 
met,  and  they  found  themselves  hampered  at  every  turn  by 
prohibitive  legislation.  The  principle  which  captured  so 
many  other  intelligences — the  principle  that  by  everybody 
paying  a  little  too  high  a  price  for  every  article  everybody 
will  grow  rich  in  turn— did  not  fall  in  with  the  practical 
experiences  of  Manchester.  In  places  like  Manchester,  when 
there  was  depression  of  trade,  they  could  not  see  that  the 
working-men  were  really  any  the  better  off  for  having  to  pay 
unnaturally  high  prices  for  their  bread,  while  having  at  the 
same  time  to  put  up  with  reduced  wages.  Therefore,  com- 
munities like  Manchester  were,  from  the  very  nature  of  their 
condition,  driven  early  into  scepticism  as  to  the  beauties 
and  virtues  of  Protection. 

The  passing  of  the  measure  of  1815  was  not  accomplished 
without  popular  tumult.  The  poor  man  might  not  be  much 
of  a  political  economist,  but  he  knew  when  his  bread  was 
too  dear,  and  he  knew  that  its  price  was  put  up  by  lawjjoj 
the  benefit  of  the  landlord  class.  There  were  riots  here 
and  there — very  serious  riots  in  some  places.  As  in  the 
Reform  Bill  riots,  the  houses  of  unpopular  men  were 
attacked.  Incendiary  fires  blazed  through  the  night.  Then 
there  were  trials  and  executions.  Men  who  had  rushed  into 
riot  under  the  terrible  impulse  of  hunger  and  despair  were 
found  guilty  and  hanged.  Thus  order  was  restored,  and  all 
went  merrily  again. 

Attempts  were  made  from  time  to  time  to  modify  the 
rigidity  of  the  Corn  Act  by  the  adoption  of  sliding-scale 
measures,  having  for  their  object  to  set  up  a  varying  system 
of  duty,  so  that  the  duty  on  foreign  wheat  should  sink  in 
proportion  according  as  the  price  of  home-grown  wheat 
increased  above  a  certain  amount.     There  was  really  no 


138  SIR   ROBERT  PEEL 

difference  in  principle  between  the  fixed  duty  and  the 
sliding-scale ;  each  alike  sought  to  secure  °"  fphorirffl 
price  for  the  grower  at  the  expense  of  the  community. ,  We 
need  not  find  too  much  fault  with  the  corn-growing  class- 
that  is,  with  the  landlords  ;  they  followed  the  instincts  of 
their  class  interests,  just  as  all  other  orders  of  men  are 
inclined  to  do.  Later  on,  it  was  found  that  every  class  in 
turn  resisted  the  application  of  the  principle  of  free  competi- 
tion to  its  own  saleable  articles.  But  the  misfortune  in  the 
case  of  the  corn-growing  interest  was  that  the  corn-growers 
were  mainly  the  law-makers,  and  had  it  in  their  power  to  suit 
their  own  interests  in  imperial  legislation.  Gradually  a 
Free-trade  organisation  began  to  be  formed  in  and  around 
Lancashire.  This  Free-trade  organisation  had  its  beginning 
in  agricultural  distress,  and  won  its  final  triumph  by  means 
of  agricultural  distress.  The  Anti-Corn  Law  League  was 
formed  in  Manchester.  The  great  Free  Trade  Hall  was 
built  on  the  ground  which  we  have  already  said  was  the  scene 
of  the  massacre  of  Peterloo.  A  regular  propaganda  was  set  on 
foot  for  the  education  of  the  people  in  the  gospel  of  Free 
Trade.  The  agitation  caught  fire.  Among  the  first  men  of 
great  popular  influence  who  gave  it  a  cordial  co-operation 
was  Daniel  O'Connell.  The  Free-trade  cause  became  a 
Parliamentary  question.  For  several  years  the  movement  in 
the  House  of  Commons  was  led  by  Mr.  Charles  Villiers,  a 
man  of  great  ability  and  sound  judgment.  He  was  an 
aristocrat  by  family,  but  was  strongly  in  sympathy  with  the 
English  democracy.  After  a  while  he  was  joined  in  the 
House  of  Commons  by  Mr.  Cobden  and  Mr.  Bright. 
Never  had  a  great  social  and  political  cause  two  more  fitting 
leaders  than  these  two.  All  that  argument  and  persuasion 
could  do  was  the  natural  work  of  Cobden  ;  all  that  oratory 


THE   IRISH    FAMINE  1 39 

of  the  very  first  order  could  accomplish  was  accomplished 
by  Bright. 

A  man  like  Peel  could  not  see  without  the  deepest 
interest,  and  without  a  growing  sympathy,  the  rise  of  this 
great  agitation.  He  knew  the  labouring  class,  he  knew  the 
artisan  class.  He  had,  under  a  chill  and  proud  exterior,  a 
singularly  sensitive  and  benevolent  heart.  The  whole  turn 
of  his  intellectual  training  had  set  him  against  the  fascinating 
sophistries  of  Protection.  Sir  Lawrence  Peel  says  of  him 
that  he  had  always  been  a  Free-trader.  '  The  questions  to 
which  he  declined  to  apply  those  principles  had  been  viewed 
by  him  as  exceptional.  The  Corn  Law  had  been  so  treated 
by  many  able  exponents  of  the  principle  of  Free  Trade.'  Sir 
Robert  Peel  had  again  and  again  expressed  in  the  House  of 
Commons  his  conviction  as  to  the  general  soundness  of  the 
principle  of  Free  Trade.  But  he  had  up  to  this  time  always 
maintained  that  the  Corn  Laws  and  the  Sugar  Duties  were 
exceptions  to  the  common  rule.  It  may  once  more  be 
pointed  out  here,  that  it  was  not  part  of  Peel's  habit  as  a 
statesman  to  look  far  ahead.  He  waited  until  an  event  came 
up  before  he  studied,  and  scrutinised  it,  and  questioned  it  as 
to  its  significance  and  its  meaning.  To  find  fault  with  this 
tendency  on  the  part  of  a  great  working  statesman  is  to  find 
fault  with  the  very  conditions  of  his  work.  He  has  no  more 
time  to  speculate  as  to  far  distant  phenomena  than  the 
steersman  has  to  make  calculations  about  the  reappearance 
of  some  far  distant  eclipse. 

There  was  nothing  as  yet  to  give  Peel  any  serious  warn- 
ing that  the  time  was  close  at  hand  when  the  question  of 
Free  Trade  would  have  to  be  faced.  Although  the  agitation 
was  spreading  so  broadly  in  many  of  the  great  towns,  it  had 
as  yet  got  little  grasp  of  the  House  of  Commons.     It  was 


140  SIR  ROBERT   PEEL 

hardly  taken  seriously  there  by  the  majority  of  members. 
The  landlords  themselves  were  not  as  yet  in  the  least  afraid 
of  it.  Mr.  Villiers,  Mr.  Cobden,  Mr.  Bright,  Mr.  Milner 
Gibson,  Mr.  W.  J.  Fox,  and  a  few  others,  were  its  avowed 
champions.  It  is  a  fact  of  some  significance,  that  the  Anti- 
Corn  Law  League  were  not  in  the  least  discouraged  by  the 
advent  of  Peel  to  power.  The  leaders  of  that  party  did  not 
profess  any  unqualified  devotion  to  the  Ministry  of  Lord 
Melbourne  or  Lord  John  Russell.  They  wanted  the 
Minister,  whoever  he  might  be,  who  would  give  them  Free 
Trade.  They  saw  very  soon  that  Peel  was,  on  the  whole,  the 
most  likely  man.  In  the  very  debate  which  took  place  on 
the  resignation  of  the  Melbourne  Ministry,  Mr.  Cobden, 
who  had  just  entered  Parliament  for  the  first  time,  said  :  '  I 
am  a  Free-trader — I  call  myself  neither  Whig  nor  Tory.  I 
am  proud  to  acknowledge  the  virtue  of  the  Whig  Ministry 
in  coming  out  from  the  ranks  of  the  monopolists,  and 
advancing  three  parts  out  of  four  in  my  direction.  Yet,  if 
the  right  honourable  baronet  opposite  (Sir  Robert  Peel) 
advances  one  step  farther,  I  shall  be  the  first  to  meet  him 
half  way,  and  shake  hands  with  him.'  Some  time  later, 
Cobden,  speaking  at  Birmingham,  said  :  '  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  Sir  Robert  Peel  is  at  heart  as  good  a  Free-trader  as 
I  am.  He  has  told  us  so  in  the  House  of  Commons  again 
and  again  ;  nor  do  I  doubt  that  Sir  Robert  Peel  has  in  his 
inmost  heart  the  desire  to  be  the  man  who  shall  carry  out 
the  principles  of  Free  Trade  in  this  country.'  When  we 
read  assertions  that  Peel  had  betrayed  his  party,  it  is  surely 
of  some  importance  to  point  to  the  fact  that,  so  far  back  as 
1 84 1,  the  leader  of  the  FYee-trade  agitation  recognised  Peel 
as  a  Free-trader.  It  is  clear  that  even  then  Peel  held  opinions, 
and  had  often  avowed  them,  which  were  absolutely  irrecon- 


THE   IRISH   FAMINE  141 

citable  with  those  of  the  ordinary  Protectionist  member  of 
Parliament,  and  that  he  had  done  all  he  could  to  make  these 
opinions  of  his  known  to  the  House  of  Commons.  Outside 
the  ranks  of  the  Free-trade  party,  no  one  went  really  any 
further  than  Peel.  PeeLhaxl  up  to  this  time  contended  that 
grain  in  England  was  a  necessary  exception  to  the  general 
principle  of  Free  Trade.  Lord  John  Russell  was  not  of 
opinion  that  the  time  had  come  when  it  could  be  treated  as 
anything  but  an  exception.  If  that  be  any  real  difference, 
such,  and  nothing  else,  was  the  difference  between  them. 
The  Free-traders  cared  as  little  for  Russell's  fixed  duty  as 
for  Peel's  sliding-scale. 

It  would,  perhaps,  have  been  better  in  the  end  if  Peel 

had  been  somewhat  more  of  an  effusive  nature  about  this 

period  of  his  career.     If  he  had  talked  more  freely  with 

some  of  his  colleagues — had   unbosomed  himself  frankly 

and  frequently,  let  them  see  the  working  of  his  mind,  such 

open  communion  with  them  might  have  greatly  helped  to 

educate  his  party.     But  Peel  was  a  shy  and  silent  man.     He 

thought  questions  over,  and  thought  them  out  for  himself, 

and  seldom  talked  over  them  with  any  one  until  he  himself 

saw  his  whole  way  clear  before  him.     It  is  quite  certain  that 

he  had  not  in   1841  even  begun  to  see  his  way.     In  1842 

Peel   introduced  his  proposals  for   a   sliding-scale.     Lord 

Melbourne  in  the  House  of  Lords,  and  Lord  John  Russell 

i;i  the  House  of  Commons,  proposed  amendments  in  favour 

of  a  fixed  duty,  but  they  were  defeated.     Lord  Melbourne, 

indeed,  was  very  half-hearted  about  the  matter.     He  told 

Lord  John  Russell  that,  while  he  did  not  think  they  ought 

to  abandon  the  principle  of  a  fixed  duty,  he  did  not  suppose 

they  could  find  anything  particularly  new  or  strong  to  say 

against  the  sliding-scale  as  Peel  had  arranged  it.     So  lately 


142  SIR    ROBERT   PEEL 

as  1839  Lord  Melbourne  had  declared,  in  the  course  of  a 
debate  in  the  House  of  Lords,  that  '  to  leave  the  whole  agri- 
cultural interest  without  protection — I  declare  before  God 
that  I  think  it  the  wildest  and  maddest  scheme  that  it  has 
ever  entered  into  the  imagination  of  man  to  conceive.'  Of 
course,  the  amendments  were  defeated,  and  Peel  carried  his 
sliding-scale.  Mr.  Villiers  and  Mr.  Cobden  brought  for- 
ward motions  for  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws  and  motions  for 
inquiry  into  their  working,  but  defeat  only  followed  defeat. 

On  the  5th  of  January,  1843,  Lord  Melbourne  wrote  to 
Lord  John  Russell  asking  him  what  language  the  Opposition 
intended  to  hold  about  corn  when  the  Parliament  met.     '  Of 
course,'  Lord  Melbourne  writes,   '  you  have  dismissed  from 
your  mind  the  notion  that  the  Government  will  move  upon 
that  subject.     Peel  would  be  an  imbecile  if  he  were  to 
break  up  his  party,  and  probably  his  Administration,  in  that 
manner.     He  will  remain  quietly  in  his  present  position. 
If  I  were  he,  I  should  not  mind  the  Anti-Corn  League  and 
their  abettors.'      Melbourne  was  not   a    very  clear-seeing 
prophet.     A  month  later  he  writes  to  Lord  John  Russell, 
that  'Peel  evidently  means  to  side  with  the  strongest  about 
corn.     Robarts  tells  me  the  opinion  in  the  City  is  that  the 
Corn  Laws  are  doomed.     Still,  if  the  country  is  quiet,  and 
the  League  lose  their  popularity,  he  will  stick  by  his  law.' 
It  is  evident,  then,  that  there  was  a  growing  feeling  that  Peel 
was  likely  to  go  far  towards  the  policy  of  repealing  the  Corn 
Laws.     The  very  earnestness  with  which  Lord  Melbourne 
expresses  his  disbelief  in  such  a  purpose  on  Peel's  part, 
only  shows  that  the  belief  must  have  been  taking  hold  of 
the  public  mind.     Melbourne  was  not  a  person  to  under- 
stand the  feelings  of  a  man  like  Peel.     He  could  not  be- 
lieve that  anybody  who  could  command  a  majority  in  the 


THE   IRISH   FAMINE  1 43 

House  of  Commons  would  think  of  breaking  up  an  Adminis- 
tration and  a  party  for  the  sake  of  any  reform  whatever. 
Still,  there  is  the  plain  fact  that  in  1843  Melbourne  felt 
bound  to  combat,  with  an  earnestness  very  unusual  in 
him,  the  growing  idea  that  Peel  was  about  to  join  hands 
with  the  Free-traders,  though  by  so  doing  he  should  break 
up  his  party,  and,  as  Lord  Melbourne  put  it,  even  his 
Administration.  It  seems  hard  to  understand  how  any  of 
Peel's  own  followers  should  never  have  found  any  doubt  or 
question  arising  in  their  minds  upon  the  subject.  It  seems 
hard  to  understand  how  they  could  have  been  so  completely 
taken  by  surprise,  as  they  said  they  were,  some  years  later, 
when  Peel  announced  that  he  had  become  a  convert  to  the 
principles  of  Free  Trade. 

'  Famine,'  said  Mr.  Bright  many  years  afterwards, 
'  against  which  we  had  warred,  joined  us.'  In  the  autumn 
of  1845  the  potato  disease  broke  out  in  Ireland,  and  the 
staple  food  of  a  whole  population  was  gone  almost  in  a 
breath.  Peel  took  from  the  first  outbreak  of  the  disease 
the  deepest  and  most  anxious  interest  in  the  condition  of 
Ireland.  He  had  reports  sent  into  him,  from  all  manner  of 
sources,  every  day,  on  what  he  called  '  the  awful  question  of 
the  potato  crop  in  Ireland.'  Never  was  a  statesman  filled 
with  a  profounder  sense  of  responsibility.  The  Cabinet 
began  to  hold  meeting  after  meeting  in  rapid  succession. 
The  Anti-Corn  Law  League  were  crying  out  for  the  open- 
ing of  the  ports.  Peel  himself  was  strongly  in  favour  of 
the  opening  of  the  ports.  He  urged  upon  his  colleagues 
the  imperative  necessity  of  removing  all  restrictions  upon 
the  importation  of  foreign  grain,  either  by  an  Order  in 
Council  or  by  calling  Parliament  together,  and  recommend- 
ing such  a  course  in  the  Speech  from  the  Throne.      Peel  was 


144  SIR    ROBERT   PEEL 

very  frank  with  his  colleagues.  He  expressed  a  strong 
doubt  as  to  whether  it  would  be  possible,  when  once  the 
ports  had  been  opened,  ever  to  close  them  again.  Indeed, 
the  Anti-Corn  Law  League  were  crying  out  for  the  opening 
of  the  ports  on  the  express  ground  that,  once  opened,  they 
never  could  be  closed  again.  The  doubt  was  enough  for 
some  of  Peel's  colleagues.  The  Duke  of  Wellington  and 
Lord  Stanley  declared  against  the  proposition,  and  Peel's 
wise  policy  fell  through  for  the  moment.  '  The  Cabinet,' 
says  Peel  himself,  'by  a  very  considerable  majority  declined 
giving  its  assent  to  the  proposals  which  I  thus  made  to 
them.  They  were  supported  by  only  three  members  of  the 
Cabinet — the  Earl  of  Aberdeen,  Sir  James  Graham,  and  Mr. 
Sidney  Herbert.  The  other  members  of  the  Cabinet,  some 
on  the  ground  of  objection  to  the  principle  of  the  measures 
recommended,  others  upon  the  ground  that  there  was  not 
yet  sufficient  evidence  of  the  necessity  for  them,  withheld 
their  sanction.'  Peel  knew  that  he  was  right,  knew  that 
events  would  soon  show  with  a  terrible  earnestness  how 
entirely  right  he  was.  But  the  Cabinet  wanted  educating  as 
yet,  and  Peel  could  do  nothing.  He  wrapped  himself  up 
in  his  usual  proud  patience,  and  he  waited.  Meantime  the 
famine  went  stalking  on. 


H 


•■ 


CHAPTER  XIII 

TRIUMPH    AND     FALL 

The  Anti-Corn  Law  League — Peel  announces  his  change  of  policy — 
He  carries  Free  Trade  at  last,  but  falls  in  his  hour  of  triumph. 

The  country  was  waking  up  to  a  sense  of  the  clanger. 
Great  organisations  were  being  formed  everywhere  for  the 
purpose  of  fighting  the  Irish  famine  by  the  arms  of  private 
beneficence  and  liberality.  It  is,  perhaps,  worth  mentioning 
that  one  noble  Duke  wrote  to  Peel  to  say  that,  considering 
the  rebellious  spirit  which  the  Irish  people  had  long  been 
showing,  he  did  not  think  the  Government  ought  to  do  any- 
thing to  relieve  their  distress.  Apparently,  he  was  of  opinion 
that  the  Government  ought  to  leave  them  to  stew  in  their 
own  grease — to  use  the  phrase  of  Chaucer  which  Prince 
Bismarck  has  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  Englishmen. 
Let  us  do  justice,  however,  to  our  noble  Duke.  He  did  not 
propose  that  Ireland  should  be  actually  left  to  starve — he 
was  entirely  in  favour  of  private  relief  organisations  ;  but 
he  thought  the  Government,  as  a  Government,  ought  to  take 
no  steps  to  keep  the  contumelious  people  from  starvation. 
One  can  imagine  the  feeling  of  compassion  and  contempt 
with  which  Peel  must  have  studied  such  a  communication. 
Suddenly,  Lord  John  Russell  wrote  a  letter  from  Edin- 
burgh to  his  constituents  in  the  City  of  London — a  letter 
which  marks  an  epoch  in  the  great  Anti-Corn  Law  contro- 

L 


I46  SIR   ROBERT   FEEL 

versy.  Lord  John  Russell  announced  that  he  had  become 
a  convert  to  the  principles  of  the  League.  It  was  no  longer 
worth  while,  he  declared,  to  contend  for  a  fixed  duty.  He 
denounced  the  Corn  Law  system  in  language  as  strong  as 
Cobden,  or  even  as  Bright,  could  have  used.  He  added 
a  remark  the  significance  of  which  is  important  to  the 
readers  of  this  volume — a  remark  to  the  effect  that  the 
Prime  Minister  seemed  to  be  only  waiting  for  some  excuse 
to  get  rid  of  the  whole  system,  and  he  called  upon  the 
people  everywhere  to  give  him  that  excuse  by  petition,  by 
address,  by  remonstrance.  Here,  again,  we  have  evidence  to 
the  fact,  most  important  for  a  fair  judgment  as  to  Peel's 
whole  course  of  action,  that  almost  everybody  outside  the 
ranks  of  Peel's  own  party  seems  to  have  been  satisfied 
that  Peel  desired  nothing  better  than  to  have  a  chance  of 
abolishing  the  Corn  Laws. 

We  have  not  the  smallest  doubt  that  Peel  welcomed 
Lord  John  Russell's  letter  with  the  most  cordial  satisfaction. 
It  gave  him  just  the  excuse  which  he  desired.  Of  all  the 
arguments  which  a  Prime  Minister  can  use  in  order  to 
prevail  upon  certain  of  his  colleagues  to  assist  him  in  intro- 
ducing some  measure  which  they  disapprove  of  or  distrust, 
there  is  none  half  so  strong  as  the  argument  that,  if  we 
do  not  introduce  it,  the  other  men  will.  Of  course,  this 
argument  would  not  have  any  influence  over  a  man  like 
Lord  Stanley,  for  instance,  who,  although  occasionally  light- 
headed enough,  yet  would  cling  to  a  principle  which  he 
believed  to  be  right,  and  would  not  allow  the  thought  of 
holding  on  to  office  a  feather's  weight  in  his  consideration. 
But  the  ordinary  member  of  an  Administration  hates  to  be 
driven  from  office,  and  is  almost  invariably  borne  down  by 
the  appeal,  '  What  is  the  use  in  our  holding  back  ?   If  we  do 


TRIUMPH   AND   FALL  1 47 

not  do  this  thing,  the  men  opposite  will ;  and  they  will  come 
over  here  to  do  it,  and  take  our  places.'  Peel  must  have 
felt  that  he  had  got  a  splendid  weapon  into  his  hand  when 
Lord  John  Russell  wrote  that  famous  letter.  Behold,  here 
is  the  foremost  man  in  the  Opposition,  and  he  declares  in 
favour  of  repealing  the  Corn  Laws  !  The  Anti-Corn  Law 
party  will  be  ready  enough  to  form  a  coalition  with  him,  and 
against  us.  The  thing  will  be  carried  anyhow,  whether  we 
like  it  or  not.  Why  should  not  we  form  the  coalition,  and 
carry  it  ? 

There  was,  probably,  no  need  for  Peel  to  enforce  these 
arguments  in  express  words.  They  enforced  themselves 
from  the  lines  of  Lord  John  Russell's  letter.  Peel  has  set 
forth  very  clearly  in  his  Memoirs,  and  with  all  his  accustomed 
candour,  the  influence  which  the  letter  of  Lord  John  Russell 
had  upon  his  own  counsels  and  the  counsels  of  his  Cabinet. 
The  letter  did  not  hurry  Peel  on  the  way  to  Free  Trade. 
As  he  says  himself,  a  mere  comparison  of  dates  will  show 
that  his  mind  was  made  up  before  Lord  John's  letter  had 
been  written.  He  had  endeavoured  to  persuade  his  col- 
leagues to  adopt  a  certain  course,  which  course  he  told  them 
plainly  must  conduct  to  Free  Trade.  He  had  made  the 
effort,  and  failed,  at  the  meeting  of  the  Cabinet  on  Thursday, 
the  6th  of  November.  Lord  John  Russell's  letter  was  dated 
1  November  22.'  Put  the  effect  which  Lord  John  Russell's 
letter  undoubtedly  had  was  to  satisfy  Peel  and  the  more 
thoughtful  among  Peel's  colleagues  that  the  coming  of  Free 
Trade  was  made  certain,  and  that  there  was  no  reason  why 
those  who  had  always  yearned  for  it,  as  Peel  had  always 
done,  should  balk  their  own  chance,  and  feebly  allow  it  to  be 
carried  by  others. 

Some  of  the  humorous  side  of  Peel's  character  comes 

l  2 


I48  SIR   ROBERT    PEEL 

out  in  his  comments  on  the  correspondence  which  he  had 
to  carry  on  at  that  time.  Lord  Kenyon,  for  example,  sug- 
gested, among  other  measures  which  he  believed  calculated 
to  relieve  the  distress  in  Ireland,  '  a  special  public  acknow- 
ledgment of  our  dependence  on  God's  mercy  in  our  present 
depressed  state.'  Peel  makes  on  that  suggestion  the  dry 
comment  that  a  Minister  might  think  it  hardly  consistent 
with  reason  to  '  make  a  public  acknowledgment  of  our 
dependence  on  God's  mercy,  and  at  the  same  time  leave  in 
full  operation  the  restraints  which  man  had  imposed  upon 
the  import  of  provisions.' 

A  Cabinet  Council  was  held  on  November  25,  almost 
immediately  after  the  publication  of  Lord  John  Russell's 
letter.  Peel  recommended  the  summoning  of  Parliament  at 
once,  for  the  purpose  of  taking  measures  to  relieve  the  dis- 
tress in  Ireland,  but  also  for  the  purpose  of  announcing  some 
legislation  designed,  either  to  repeal  the  Corn  Laws,  or  to 
prepare  the  way  for  their  repeal.  He  was  now  quite  satisfied 
that  the  Protection  system  had  utterly  broken  down,  and  that 
the  sooner  it  was  got  rid  of,  the  better.  Lord  Stanley  could 
not  yet  see  his  way.  He  asked  for  time  to  consider,  and,  the 
more  he  considered,  the  more  Protectionist  he  became.  The 
Duke  of  Wellington  took  an  attitude  worthy  of  Colonel 
Newcome.  He  was  quite  unchanged,  he  declared,  in  his 
personal  conviction  that  the  Corn  Laws  ought  to  be  main- 
tained, but  he  frankly  owned  that  he  '  thought  a  good 
Government  for  the  Queen  was  more  important  than  Corn 
Laws  or  any  other  consideration.'  He  had  convinced 
himself  that  Peel  was  the  only  man  who  could  properly 
administer  Government  for  the  Queen,  and,  therefore,  he 
was  quite  prepared  to  support  every  measure  Peel  thought  it 
right  to  bring  in.     The  Happy  Warrior  gave  out  his  ideas 


TRIUMPH   AND    FALL  1 49 

with  a  touching  simplicity.    Perhaps  there  never  was  a  more 
ingenuous  avowal  of  the  faith  that  man  was  made  for  the 
Government,  and    not    the   Government   for   man.     Lord 
Stanley  at  last  made  up  his  mind  that  he  could  not  remain 
in  the  Cabinet  to  carry  out  a  policy  which,  to  put  it  mildly, 
must  at  least  end  in  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws.     The 
Duke  of  Buccleuch  was  of  the  same  conviction.     In  Peel's 
judgment,  there  was  nothing  for  it  now  but  to  resign  office. 
He  did  not  feel  that,  deprived  of  such  considerable  support, 
he  was  in  a  position  to  carry  out  his  policy.    He  might  have 
resigned  when,  on  the  5th  of  November,  his  colleagues  declined 
to  accept  his  recommendations.     But  he  argued,  very  wisely 
and  justly,  then,  that  he  was  still  bound  to  keep  to  his  post. 
Not  all  of  those  who  could  not  agree  to  his  proposals  had 
rejected  them  peremptorily  and  finally.     It  seemed  quite 
probable  that  the  teaching  of  events  might  school  some  of 
those  who  doubted  into  a  better  knowledge  of  the  right 
course  to  be  taken— might  teach  them,  at  all  events,  that  the 
course  recommended  was  inevitable.    But  Peel  made  up  his 
mind  in   the  most  decisive  way  that  his  retention  of  office 
for  the  time  was   merely  to  give  others  an  opportunity  of 
coming  round  to  him,  and  not  with  any  idea  whatever  of  his 
coming   round   to   them.     '  In   determining,'  he   says,   '  to 
retain  office  for  the  present,  I  determined  also  not  to  recede 
from  the  position  I  had  taken,  and  ultimately  to  resign  office 
if  I  should  find,  on  the  re-assembling  of  the  Cabinet,  that  the 
opinions  I  had  expressed  did  not  meet  with  general  concur- 
rence.'    Now  this  condition   had   been   realised,  and  Peel 
would  not  hesitate.      On  December  5  he  went  to  Osborne, 
'  and   humbly   solicited  her  Majesty   to   relieve   me   from 
duties  which  I  felt  I  could  no  longer  discharge  with  advan- 
tage to  her  Majesty's  service.' 


150  SIR    ROBERT    PEEL 

Peel  acted  rightly  when  he  forbore  to  resign  on  the  first 
rejection  of  his  advice  by  his  colleagues,  and  rightly  also 
when  he  determined  to  resign  on  finding  that  he  could  not 
obtain  the  general  concurrence  of  the  Cabinet  after  he  had 
given  his  colleagues  a  second  chance.  He  had  one  strong 
and  steady  purpose  in  his  mind,  and  that  was  to  bring 
about  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws.  That  purpose  dominated 
all  his  thoughts  and  all  his  actions.  He  would  stay  in 
office,  despite  of  every  rebuff  and  every  disappointment,  so 
long  as  he  thought  he  could  by  staying  in  office  help  to 
repeal  the  Corn  Laws.  He  would  not  stay  in  office  one 
moment  after  he  had  satisfied  himself  that,  for  whatever 
reason,  it  was  not  in  his  power  to  repeal  the  Corn  Laws. 
After  the  Cabinet  Council  of  November  25  he  became  con- 
vinced that  the  work  of  repealing  the  Corn  Laws  was  a 
man's  office,  but  not  his,  as  Beatrice  puts  it ;  that  Lord  John 
Russell,  with  the  Whigs,  could  do  it.  When  he  had  come 
to  this  conclusion,  he  at  once  resigned  his  place. 

The  Queen  sent  for  Lord  John  Russell.  Russell  came 
up  from  Edinburgh,  and  did  his  best  to  form  an  Adminis- 
tration. It  was  a  difficult  undertaking.  His  party  was  in  a 
minority  in  the  House  of  Commons,  and  was  not  very  strong 
in  the  country.  For  some  reason  or  other  the  elections 
which  had  recently  taken  place  here  and  there  had  not  gone 
favourably  for  the  Free-traders.  Before  making  any  attempt, 
Russell  endeavoured  to  obtain  from  Peel  a  promise  that 
he  would  support  a  measure  for  the  complete  and  immediate 
repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws.  Peel  could  not  see  his  way  to 
give  any  promise  of  the  kind,  nor  would  he  even  consent  to 
be  consulted  as  to  the  draft  scheme  of  the  measure.  He  did 
not  think  it  would  be  proper  on  his  part  to  give  such  a 
pledge  ;  and  he  did  not  think  it  would  do  any  good  to  the 


TRIUMPH   AND   FALL  I  51 

common  purpose,  but  only  harm,  if  he  were  to  co-operate  in 
the  preparation  of  a  scheme.  He  was  convinced  that  '  pre- 
vious concert,  or  a  previous  pledge  on  his  part  to  support 
any  particular  measure  of  adjustment,  would  be  distasteful 
to  the  House  of  Commons  and  embarrassing  to  all 
parties.'  Lord  John  Russell  admitted  the  fairness  of 
Peel's  course  of  action,  and,  although  terribly  embarrassed 
by  the  task  forced  upon  him,  he  still  went  to  work,  with 
undaunted  and  highly  characteristic  courage,  to  form  an 
Administration.  A  new  difficulty  arose  in  his  way.  Lord 
Grey — lately  Lord  Howick,  and  who  had  just  succeeded 
his  father,  the  Lord  Grey  of  the  Reform  Bill— refused 
to  take  office  if  Lord  Palmerston,  of  whose  policy  he 
strongly  disapproved,  were  to  be  Foreign  Secretary.  Lord 
Grey  also  held  that  Mr.  Cobden  ought  to  be  invited  to  take 
a  seat  in  the  Cabinet.  Lord  John  Russell  felt  satisfied  that 
the  complete  and  cordial  concurrence  of  all  the  leading  men 
of  his  party  would  be  necessary  in  order  to  give  him  the 
slightest  chance  of  maintaining  an  Administration.  This 
he  found  himself  unable  to  secure,  and,  therefore,  he  said  in 
his  letter  to  the  Queen,  '  he  must  now  consider  that  task  as 
hopeless  which  has  been  from  the  beginning  hazardous.' 
Peel  had  been  sent  for  by  the  Queen  for  a  parting  inter- 
view on  his  retirement  from  office.  To  his  surprise,  he 
found  on  his  arrival  at  Windsor  that  the  Queen  had  now  to 
invite  him  to  resume  office.  He  had  no  choice  but  to  agree 
under  such  conditions,  and  he  returned  from  Windsor  on 
the  evening  of  December  20  '  having  resumed  all  the  func- 
tions of  First  Minister  of  the  Crown.'  He  expressed  his 
own  feelings  simply  and  frankly  in  a  letter  to  the  Princess 
Lievcn.  'I  resume  power,'  he  wrote,  'with  greater  means  of 
rendering  public  service  than  I  should  have  had  if  I  had  not 


152  SIR    ROBERT   PEEL 

relinquished  it.  But  it  is  a  strange  dream.  I  feel  like  a 
man  restored  to  life  after  his  funeral  service  had  been 
preached.'  The  Duke  of  Buccleuch  withdrew  his  opposi- 
tion to  Peel's  policy,  and  consented  to  remain  in  office. 
Lord  Stanley  held  to  his  resolve,  and  would  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  Ministry.  His  place  as  Secretary  for  the 
Colonies  was  given  by  Peel  to  Mr.  Gladstone,  who  was  now, 
like  Peel  himself,  a  convinced  Free-trader.  It  is  a  curious 
fact  that  Mr.  Gladstone  did  not  sit  in  Parliament  during  the 
eventful  session  that  was  coming.  He  had  obtained  a  seat 
for  the  borough  of  Newark  through  the  influence  of  the 
Duke  of  Newcastle  ;  but  the  Duke  of  Newcastle  had  with- 
drawn his  support  from  Peel,  and  Mr.  Gladstone  therefore 
did  not  seek  immediate  re-election  on  accepting  office,  but 
remained  for  some  months  without  a  seat  in  the  House  ot 
Commons.  During  his  absence  the  great  battle,  in  which  he 
would  have  made  a  splendid  figure,  was  fought  and  won. 

Parliament  met  on  the  2  2nd  of  January,  1846.  The  Speech 
from  the  Throne  referred  with  satisfaction  to  the  measures 
already  taken  from  time  to  time  to  extend  commerce  and 
stimulate  domestic  skill  and  industry  by  the  repeal  of  prohibi- 
tive and  the  relaxation  of  protective  duties,  and  recommended 
Parliament  to  take  into  its  early  consideration  whether  '  the 
principle  on  which  you  have  acted  may  not  with  advantage 
be  yet  more  extensively  applied.'  Before  the  Address  in 
reply  to  the  Speech  from  the  Throne  was  moved,  Peel  rose, 
and  gave  notice  that  he  would  on  the  earliest  possible  day 
submit  to  the  consideration  of  the  House  certain  measures 
connected  with  the  commercial  and  financial  affairs  of  the 
country.  There  was  surprise,  there  was  anxiety,  when  this 
brief  announcement  was  made.  Was  that  all  the  House  was 
going  to  hear  that  night  ?     Were  the  members  to  be  sent 


TRIUMPH    AND   FALL  I  53 

home  with  absolutely  unsatisfied  anxiety?  The  Address 
was  moved  and  seconded,  and  men  tried  to  listen  with  fair 
appearance  of  interest ;  but  everyone  was  thinking  about 
Peel  and  the  Government,  and  what  they  were  going  to  do. 
At  last  the  formal  speech-making  was  over,  and  the  Speaker 
put  the  question  from  the  chair.  Then  was  the  time  for 
debate  to  begin— and  there  is  always  some  debate,  or,  at  least, 
some  talk  on  the  motion  for  the  Address.  Usually  the  leader 
of  the  Opposition  begins— criticises  the  Ministerial  policy,  and 
gives  the  Ministers  something  to  reply  to.  No  one  at  that 
moment  was  looking  with  any  expectation  towards  the 
Treasury  Bench  ;  most  members  were  looking  towards 
Lord  John  Russell  or  Mr.  Cobden.  Suddenly,  to  the 
surprise  of  all,  Sir  Robert  Peel  himself  got  up,  and  then 
everyone  knew  that  the  great  explanation  was  about  to  be 
made. 

Even  then,  however,  the  full  explanation  did  not  come. 
Peel's  speech  was  long,  elaborate,  tantalising.  It  was  less 
of  a  Ministerial  explanation  or  a  Ministerial  announcement 
of  a  coming  policy  than  an  apologia  pro  vita  sua— an  account 
of  the  speaker's  own  conversion.  It  went  into  elaborate  cal- 
culations, and  arrayed  masses  of  figures  to  show  that  reduction 
of  duty  was  constantly  followed  by  expansion  of  the  revenue, 
and  often  even  by  a  maintenance  of  high  prices.  One  great 
fact,  however,  was  made  clear  to  both  sides  of  the  House  : 
Sir  Robert  Peel  had  become  a  convert  to  the  doctrines 
of  Cobden,  and  was  for  Free  Trade  sans  phrase.  The 
time  had  arrived  when,  in  Peel's  opinion,  that  protection  on 
home-grown  corn  which  he  had  come  into  power  to  maintain 
must  be  abandoned  for  ever.  It  was  the  story  of  Catholic 
Emancipation  over  again. 

The  debate  of  that  opening  night  was  made  memorable 


154  SI^   ROBERT   PEEL 

by  the  first  really  successful  speech  which  Disraeli  ever 
delivered  in  the  House  of  Commons.  The  speech  was 
made  just  at  the  right  moment  :  it  found  the  Conservative 
party  reeling  and  staggering  ;  it  rallied  them  into  a  party 
once  again.  For  an  interval  yet  the  Protectionists  were  to 
be  led  by  Lord  George  Bentinck,  but  from  the  moment 
when  Disraeli  delivered  his  speech  «he  was  marked  out 
as  the  real  inspiration  and  guide  of  the  party. 

On  the  2  7th  of  January  Peel  explained  his  financial  policy. 
A  sort  of  ad  interim  tariff,  gradually  declining,  was  to  be  kept 
up  for  three  years,  and  at  the  end  of  that  time  protection  on 
1  corn  was  to  be  abandoned  altogether.  That  is  the  sum  and 
substance  of  the  announcement.  It  did  not  quite  satisfy  the 
Free-traders.  They  would,  if  they  could,  have  had  the  aboli- 
tion immediate.  But  although  they  proposed  an  amendment 
embodying  their  own  views,  they  had,  of  course,  no  idea  of 
not  accepting  cordially  the  reform  which  Peel  was  offering. 
The  real  struggle  was  on  the  amendment  proposed  by  the 
Protectionists,  which  was  simply  a  motion  for  the  absolute 
rejection  of  the  Government  measure.  The  debate  lasted 
twelve  nights,  and  at  the  end  the  Protectionists  were  defeated 
by  337  votes  against  240  ;  a  majority  of  97.  Large  as  this 
majority  was,  it  was  not  quite  so  large  as  had  been  expected 
on  both  sides,  and  the  result  put  the  Protectionists  into  better 
spirits,  and  gave  them  courage  to  persevere  in  their  resistance. 
The  resistance  now  took  the  form  of  obstruction.  There  was 
ample  room  for  obstruction,  seeing  that  each  of  the  two  great 
financial  proposals  of  the  Government  had  to  be  introduced 
and  carried  as  a  separate  Bill.  One  painful  scene  during 
the  course  of  the  debates  was  caused  by  Disraeli — or 
rather,  perhaps,  we  should  say  that  a  very  painful  incident  in 
a  former   debate  was   revived    by  Disraeli.      A  few  years 


TRIUMPH   AND   FALL  155 

before  Peel's  private  secretary,  Mr.  Edward  Drummond,  was 
shot  dead  by  an  assassin,  who  afterwards  was  proved  to  be  a 
lunatic,  and  sent  to  an  asylum  for  life.     There  could  be  no 
doubt  that  the  attempt  was  intended  for  Peel  himself.     As 
was  but  natural,  the  event  made  a  profound  impression  on 
Peel,  and  during  one  of  the  debates  on  Free  Trade,  before 
Peel  had  yet  altered  his  policy,  Cobden  happened  to  say 
that  he  would  hold  the  Prime  Minister  responsible  for  the 
condition  of  the  country.     Peel   suddenly  lost  his  temper 
and  his  self-control,  and,  jumping  to  his  feet,  declared  that  he 
understood  Cobden  to  be  threatening  him  with  assassination. 
So  high  did  men's  passions  run  at  the  time,  that  the  Tory 
benches  rang  with  cheers  for  Peel  as  he  made  this  frantic 
charge  against  a  man  of  the  noble  and  blameless  character 
of  Cobden.     Of  course,  Peel,  with  his  generous  heart,  soon 
repented  of  his  inconsiderate  outburst  and  his  absurd  charge  ; 
and  the  incident,  once  passed,  ought  to  have  been  allowed 
to  lie  buried  in    forgetfulness.      Disraeli   was   ungenerous 
enough  to  make  allusion  to  it  in  one  of  his  attacks  on  Peel 
during   the    long   debates  on   Peel's   Free-trade   measures. 
Perhaps,  on  the  whole,  it  was  well  that  the  allusion  should 
have  been  made.    It  only  drew  from  Peel  a  renewed  apology, 
and  a  renewed  expression  of  regret  for  the  charge  he  had 
made  ;   and   from  Cobden  a  declaration  that  the  apology 
was  entirely  satisfactory,  and  the  expression  of  an  earnest 
hope  that  no  one  on  either  side  of  the  House  would  ever 
allude  to  the  subject  again.     We  have  seen  that  Peel  lost 
his  temper  during  one  of  the  debates  on  the  Reform  Bill  ; 
and  the  truth  is  that,  like  many  men  who  seem  all  chilliness 
and  self-control,  he  had  a  sensitive  nature  and  a  quick  temper,, 
which  only  the  pressure  of  an  almost  constant  self-repression 
enabled  him  to  keep  under  control.    We  need  not  go  into  the 


156  SIR    ROBERT    PEEL 

details  of  the  long  Parliamentary  struggle.  The  Government 
measure  passed  its  third  reading,  on  May  5,  by  a  majority 
of  98  votes.  It  then  went  up  to  the  House  of  Lords,  and 
by  the  earnest  endeavours  of  the  Duke  of  Wellington  was 
carried  through  that  House.  It  was  read  for  the  third  time 
on  June  25.  But  the  final  triumph  of  Peel's  great  policy 
was  not  the  only  event  of  June  25.  That  eventful  day  saw 
the  success  of  Peel's  policy  and  the  fall  of  Peel's  Administra- 
tion. The  battle  was  won  ;  but  the  victor  was  in  the  dust. 
Ireland  caused  the  fall.  During  the  course  of  the  debates 
on  the  Corn  Bill  in  the  House  of  Commons,  the  Government 
believed  it  necessary  to  introduce  a  Coercion  Bill  for  Ireland. 
This  was  a  sort  of  policy  which  every  Government  then  was 
in  the  habit  of  adopting.  There  was  nothing  remarkable  in 
Peel's  having  recourse  to  it.  But,  of  course,  the  Irish 
members — those  who  followed  the  leadership  of  O'Connell 
— would  naturally  oppose  such  a  Bill.  That  was  to  be 
expected.  Lord  George  Bentinck,  the  leader  of  the  Pro- 
tectionist party,  supported  the  Coercion  Bill  in  the  first 
instance.  During  the  Whitsuntide  recess  he  changed  his 
views.  He  declared  that  he  had  supported  the  Bill  on  the 
assurance  of  the  Government  that  it  was  absolutely  necessary 
for  the  safety  of  life  in  Ireland,  but  that  the  Government 
had  shown  that  it  was  not  a  question  of  any  urgency  by  the 
fact  that  they  had  not  pressed  the  Bill  forward  in  advance 
of  all  other  legislation.  Further,  he  added  that  he  had  no 
longer  any  confidence  in  the  Government,  and  that  he  would 
not  trust  it  with  any  extraordinary  powers.  Of  course,  the 
meaning  of  all  this  was  obvious.  The  disappointed  and 
angry  Protectionists  saw  that  there  was  a  very  good  chance 
of  defeating  Peel  on  the  Coercion  Bill,  and  so  turning  him  out 
of  office.    Mr.  Disraeli,  in  his  '  Life  of  Lord  George  Bentinck/ 


TRIUMPH  AND   FALL  I  57 

admits  that  '  the  spirit  of  vengeance '  had  taken  possession 
of  the  breasts  of  most  of  the  party.  The  chance  of  obtain- 
ing retribution  seemed  to  grow  better  and  better  as  time 
went  on.  The  Whigs,  when  in  Opposition,  generally  refused 
to  give  their  support  to  a  mere  scheme  of  coercion,  un- 
accompanied by  any  remedial  measures,  and  the  new 
Radical  part)-,  who  worked  with  Cobden  and  Bright,  were 
almost  certain  to  take  that  course  now.  No  sense  of  grati- 
tude to  Peel  for  his  Free-trade  policy  would  prevent 
severely  conscientious  men  like  Cobden  and  Bright  from 
voting  against  a  measure  of  which  they  disapproved.  In 
short,  the  Protectionists  saw  their  chance,  and  were  deter- 
mined to  avail  themselves  of  it.  Peel  knew  what  was  coming. 
He  foresaw  that  he  must  be  defeated,  and  he  made  up  his 
mind  that,  if  defeated,  he  would  go  out  of  office,  and  would 
not  appeal  to  the  country. 

The  Duke  of  Wellington  was  rather  in  favour  of  an 
appeal  to  the  country,  but  Peel  had  made  up  his  mind 
in  advance.  There  was  a  clear  interchange  of  views 
between  Wellington  and  Peel  on  this  subject,  which  may  be 
read  even  now  with  deep  interest — which,  at  least  so  far 
as  Peel's  part  of  the  correspondence  is  concerned,  is  not 
without  application  to  the  politics  of  to-day.  On  the  21st 
of  June  Peel  sent  to  the  Duke  a  memorandum  of  his  views 
as  to  the  coming  crisis.  He  indulged  in  no  illusions  ;  he 
was  a  man  whose  characteristic  it  was  always  to  front  the 
facts,  and  never  to  indulge  in  illusions.  '  Depend  upon  it,' 
he  wrote,  '  that  we  shall  not  pass  the  Irish  Bill  into  a  law. 
If  we  have  a  small  majority  on  the  first  division,  it  will  give 
us  no  assurance,  and,  in  my  opinion,  no  hope  of  success. 
We  shall  be  defeated  by  concerted  delay,  if  we  cannot 
be  defeated  by  numbers.'     There  would  be  obstruction. 


153  SIR    ROBERT   TEEL 

Perhaps  it  might  be  thought  that  public  opinion  in  England 
would  put  down  the  obstruction.  '  Do  not  trust  to  this. 
There  is  an  Irish  party— a  determined  and  not  insignificant 
one — for  which  British  indignation  has  no  terrors.'  What, 
then,  was  to  be  done?  Ministers  might  make  up  their  minds 
to  dissolve  Parliament,  and  appeal  to  the  country  instead  of 
resigning.  'There  is  nothing  I  should  deprecate  more  than 
dissolution  of  Parliament  on  the  express  ground  of  the 
Coercion  Bill — of  all  the  grounds,  I  think  it  the  worst  and 
the  most  dangerous.'  First,  he  shows  that  it  would  only 
bring  about  a  return  of  Irish  members  even  more  determined 
to  oppose  and  obstruct  Coercion  Bills.  '  But,  secondly,  let 
us  beware  for  higher  reasons  how  we  make  a  dissolution 
of  Parliament  turn  on  a  question  between  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland.'  'Shall  Ireland  be  subject  to  a  severe  and 
unconstitutional  law  which  is  not  to  be  applied,  and 
never  was  applied,  to  Great  Britain  ?  It  will  be  vain 
to  say  that  our  object  is  to  protect  life  in  Ireland.  The 
answer  will  be  that  there  are  scarcely  20  out  of  105  Irish 
members  who  agree  with  us  in  the  necessity  or  probable 
efficacy  of  the  measure.  The  Irish  representative 
body  is  against  us — is  against  an  unconstitutional  law 
intended  separately  for  Ireland.  The  cry  in  England — 
if  such  a  cry  could  be  got  up,  or  if  it  were  decent  or  safe 
to  attempt  it— must  be  Coercion  for  Ireland.  The  cry  in 
Ireland  will  be  Equal  Law — No  Coercion.  No  Popery 
was  a  dangerous  watchword  for  a  general  election.  I  firmly 
believe  that  the  more  dangerous  watchword,  Coercion  for 
Ireland,  would  shake  the  foundations  of  the  Legislative 
Union.'  The  point  to  which  attention  should  be  directed 
in  this  memorandum  is  the  singular  clearness  with  which 
Peel  separates  his  own  personal  convictions  from  the  manner 


TRIUMPH   AND   FALL  159 

in  which  public  opinion  will  work,  and  from  the  results  of 
that  working.  Peel  never  was  much  in  sympathy  with  the 
national  sentiment  of  Ireland.  He  was  not  able  even  to 
make  much  allowance  for  the  position  of  the  Irish  members. 
He  had  very  harsh  words  for  them  often.  He  had  studied 
Ireland  only  from  the  windows  of  Dublin  Castle.  His 
particular  friend,  Mr.  Gregory,  was  much  disliked  by  the 
Irish  Catholics,  and  had  no  feeling  for  their  cause  or  their 
claims.  Peel  was  fully  convinced  that  a  Coercion  Bill  was 
needed  for  the  preservation  of  life  in  Ireland.  Yet  he  was 
able  to  detach  himself  absolutely  from  his  own  predilections 
and  his  own  convictions,  and  to  see  distinctly  what  other 
people  would  think  of  the  policy  which  he  felt  bound  to 
advocate.  Those  Irish  members  whom  I  dislike  and  dis- 
trust— yet,  are  they  not,  after  all,  the  representatives  of  the 
Irish  people?  Will  not  Englishmen  ask  how  you  come  to 
bring  in  exceptional  legislation  for  Ireland  without  con- 
sulting the  Irish  representatives,  and  obtaining  their  assent  ? 
This  Coercion  Bill  is  necessary  ;  but  it  is  a  Bill  which  no 
one  would  think  of  applying  to  England,  and  it  is,  of  course, 
unconstitutional — a  suspension  of  the  Constitution  in  Ireland. 
These  Irish  members,  noisy,  violent,  obstructive — they  do 
not  care  about  the  wrath  of  English  public  opinion,  because 
they  look  only  to  the  public  opinion  of  their  own  country. 
If  we  do  dissolve,  the  only  cry  we  could  raise  would  be 
the  cry  of  Coercion  for  Ireland ;  to  which  Ireland  would 
answer  with  the  counter-cry  of  No  Coercion — Equal  Laws 
for  the  Two  Countries.  And  which  cry  would  tell  with  the 
more  thrilling  effect?  The  most  ardent  Irish  Nationalist 
could  hardly  read  that  Memorandum  of  Peel's  without  a 
feeling  of  admiration  for  the  logical  courage  and  truthfulness 
of  the  man.     He  ^vould  not  like  Peel's  way  of  speaking  of 


I  CO  SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 

the  Irish  representation  ;  he  would  think  Peel  unsym- 
pathetic, prejudiced,  and  harsh  as  regarded  Ireland  ;  but 
he  would  admit  that  there  were  no  shams  about  the  great 
Minister.  If  Peel  felt  bound  to  thrust  on  Ireland  excep- 
tional legislation,  he  was  at  least  incapable  of  making  any 
pretence  at  believing  it  not  exceptional.  If  the  Constitution 
were  to  be  suspended  in  Ireland,  and  not  in  England,  he 
was  utterly  above  the  absurdity  of  pretending  that  equal 
legislation  existed  in  the  two  countries.  Nor  did  he  for  a 
moment  think  of  disguising  from  himself  the  fact  that,  no 
matter  how  needful  he  might  believe  coercive  laws  for 
Ireland  to  be,  the  majority  of  the  English  people  in  their 
hearts  distrusted  and  detested  such  legislation,  and  that  it 
would  not  be  good  to  face  a  general  election  with  no  better 
war-cry  for  the  polls. 

There  was  a  long  and  an  impassioned  debate  on  the 
Coercion  Bill.  Peel's  prophecy  came  to  be  realised  to  the 
full.  The  irreconcilables  among  the  Protectionists  voted 
with  the  Whigs  and  the  Radicals  and  the  Irish  Nationalist 
members,  and  the  Bill  was  defeated  on  its  second  reading 
by  292  votes  against  219.  The  Ministry  were  left  in  a 
minority  of  73.  This  was  on  June  25,  four  days  after  the 
date  of  Peel's  Memorandum.  Eighty  Protectionists  fol- 
lowed Lord  George  Bentinck  into  the  lobby,  and  their  votes 
decided  the  fate  of  Ministers.  Theirs  was  strictly  and 
altogether  a  stroke  of  vengeance.  Cobden  preluded  his 
vote  by  a  warm  eulogy  of  the  manner  in  which  Peel  had 
fought  and  won  his  Free-trade  battle.  Lord  George  Ben- 
tinck declared,  on  behalf  of  his  Protectionists,  that  'it  is 
time  atonement  should  be  made  to  the  insulted  country, 
to  an  insulted  Parliament,  and  to  the  betrayed  constituency 
of  the  Empire.'    On  the  following  Monday  it  was  announced 


TRIUMPH   AND   FALL  l6l 

by  the  Duke  of  Wellington  in  the  House  of  Lords,  and 
Sir  Robert  Peel  in  the  House  of  Commons,  that  the 
Ministers  had  tendered,  and  that  the  Queen  had  accepted, 
their  resignation. 

Disraeli  has  found  fault  with  Peel's  closing  speech — the 
speech  in  which  he  announced  his  resignation  of  office. 
Public  opinion  has  certainly  not  ratified  Disraeli's  assertion 
that  it  was  a  speech  full  of  glorification  and  pique.  It  was, 
indeed,  full  of  an  emotion  not  common  with  Peel,  but 
highly  honourable  and  becoming ;  and  it  was  modest  and 
dignified.  Nothing  could  be  more  generous  than  the 
tribute  to  Cobden,  and  the  frank  declaration  that  Cobden's 
name,  and  not  Peel's  own,  would  for  ever  be  associated 
with  the  triumph  of  Free  Trade.  The  closing  passage  of 
the  speech  may  almost  be  considered  already  classic  : — '  It 
may  be  that  I  shall  leave  a  name  sometimes  remembered 
with  expressions  of  good-will  in  those  places  which  are  the 
abode  of  men  whose  lot  is  to  labour  and  to  earn  their 
daily  bread  by  the  sweat  of  their  brow — a  name  remem- 
bered with  expressions  of  good-will  when  they  shall  recreate 
their  exhausted  strength  with  abundant  and  untaxed  food, 
the  sweeter  because  it  is  no  longer  leavened  with  a  sense 
of  injustice.' 


M 


l62  SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 


CHAPTER  XIV 

THE    LAST    CHAPTER 

Peel's   vindication   of  his   policy— His  position  in  the   country— His 
seeming  prospects,  and  his  sudden  death. 

So  the  great  career  was  over — the  great  Minister  had  fallen. 
At  the  moment  of  his  most  splendid  triumph  his  enemies 
closed  round  him  and  struck  him  down.  '  We  have  fallen 
in  the  face  of  day,'  Peel  wrote  to  Lord  Hardinge  in  India, 
'  and  with  our  front  to  our  enemies.'  The  defeat  took  place 
two  hours  after  Peel  had  received  the  news  that  the  Corn 
and  the  Customs  Bills  had  passed  through  the  House  of 
Lords.  By  another  curious  coincidence,  on  the  very  day 
when  he  had  to  announce  to  the  House  of  Commons  the 
resignation  of  the  Government,  the  news  arrived  that  the 
Oregon  Question,  which  at  one  time  looked  so  serious,  had 
been  peaceably  settled  ;  that  the  proposals  of  the  Peel 
Government  had  been  accepted  in  full  by  the  United  States. 
The  ambition  of  no  English  statesman  could  ask  for  a  higher 
satisfaction  than  was  contained  in  these  two  triumphs.  No 
wonder  that  Peel  should  have  closed  his  letter  to  Lord 
Hardinge  with  the  words  :— '  Lady  Peel  and  I  are  here,  quite 
alone,  in  the  loveliest  weather,  feasting  on  solitude  and 
repose,  and  I  have  every  disposition  to  forgive  my  enemies 
for  having  conferred  upon  me  the  blessing  of  the  loss  of 
power.'     A  still  more  characteristic  letter  of  Peel's  is  pub- 


THE    LAST   CHAPTER  1 63 

lished  in  his  Memoirs.  It  is  written  in  reply  to  the  re- 
monstrance of  a  noble  lord  whose  name  is  not  given,  and 
who  found  fault,  not  with  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws,  but 
with  the  manner  of  bringing  abou  the  repeal.  The  author 
of  the  remonstrance  was  of  opinion  that  the  result  might 
have  been  brought  about  without  offending  the  Conservative 
party.  He  thought  there  should  have  been  confidential 
communications  with  certain  peers  and  other  leading  Con- 
servatives, and  meetings  to  give  and  receive  explanations — 
in  other  words,  that  Peel  ought  to  have  educated  the  party. 
The  question  has  often  been  raised — will  be  raised  again 
and  again — Why  did  not  Peel  take  his  party  into  his  confi- 
dence ?  Peel  himself  gives  his  reasons  with  great  frankness, 
and  they  are,  unquestionably,  reasons  of  a  highly  practical 
character.  In  December,  1845,  Peel  tells  us  he  had  made 
up  his  mind  that  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws  was  '  indispens- 
able to  the  public  welfare,  and  to  the  real  interest  and 
security  of  the  Protectionists  themselves.  Being  of  that 
opinion,  every  consideration  became  subordinate  to  the 
carrying  of  repeal.  I  was  determined  to  carry  it,  for 
failure  after  proposing  it  would  have  involved  this  country 
in  most  serious  evils.'  Then  comes  a  declaration  which 
must  at  the  time  have  been  read  with  surprise  : — '  It  was 
impossible  to  reconcile  the  repea  of  the  Corn  Laws  by  me 
with  the  keeping  together  of  the  Conservative  party,  and  I 
had  no  hesitation  in  sacrificing  the  subordinate  object,  and 
with  it  my  own  political  interests.'  Peel,  then,  knew  clearly 
what  he  was  doing.  He  knew  that  he  was  about  to  break  up 
his  party,  knew  that  he  was  going  to  ruin  his  own  political 
interests.  A  man  must  be  a  thorough  partisan  indeed  who 
will  not  say  that  the  Minister  who  has  to  choose  between 
his  party  and  his  country  is  bound  to  one  decision,  and  one 

w  2 


164  SIR    ROBERT    TEEL 

only.  Peel  goes  on  to  show  the  difficulties  which  stand  in 
the  way  of  conveying  information  to  a  political  party  as  to 
the  intentions  of  a  Minister  '  in  regard  to  questions  which 
are  intimately  connected  with  great  commercial  speculations 
and  great  pecuniary  gains  and  losses' ;  and  he  declares  that 
it  is  '  ten  times  more  difficult  to  make  such  a  communica- 
tion to  a  selected  few.'  '  Times  are  changed  since  a  Prime 
Minister,  after  ascertaining  the  sentiments  of  the  Marquess 
of  Hertford,  and  the  Duke  of  Rutland,  and  the  Earl  of 
Lonsdale,  could  form  a  pretty  good  guess  of  the  inclinations 
and  probable  conduct  of  a  whole  party.'  'There  is  not 
time  for  a  Minister  to  hold  separate  communications  with 
Lord  This  and  Mr.  That,  and  go  through  the  whole  series 
of  facts  and  arguments,  the  combination,  the  general  result 
of  which  has  led  him  to  form  a  settled  but  still  debateable 
conclusion.  Nothing  but  the  full  and  ample  detail  which 
can  be  made  once  for  all  in  Parliament  will  do  justice  to 
the  case,  and  gain  the  assent  of  reluctant  supporters.  I  am 
perfectly  satisfied  that  if,  at  any  time  between  the  1st  of 
November  and  the  day  on  which  (having  resumed  the 
Government,  on  which  neither  Lord  John  Russell  nor  Lord 
Stanley  would  venture)  I  announced  in  the  House  of 
Commons  the  intended  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws,  I  had  tried 
to  gain  acquiescence,  either  by  belabouring  individuals 
separately,  or  by  summoning  the  party  generally,  I  should 
have  received  scarcely  one  promise  of  support.  I  should 
have  had  on  the  part  of  the  most  moderate  a  formal  protest 
against  the  course  I  intended  to  pursue  ;  to  the  most  violent 
I  should  have  given  facilities  for  organised  opposition  ;  I 
should  have  appeared  to  be  flying  in  the  face  of  a  whole 
party,  and  contumaciously  disregarding  their  opinion  and 
advice  after  I  had  professed  to  consult  them  ;  but  (what  is 


THE   LAST   CHAPTER  1 65 

of  infinitely  more  importance)  I  should  have  failed  in 
carrying  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws.' 

This  is  Peel's  final  reply  to  the  arguments  of  the  noble- 
man who  remonstrated  with  him.  '  I  was  resolved,'  Peel 
says,  '  not  to  fail.  I  did  not  fail ;  and  if  I  had  to  fight  the 
battle  over  again,  I  would  fight  it  in  the  same  way.  Lord 
's  way  was  certain  of  defeat.' 

It  seems  to  me  impossible  to  get  over  Peel's  arguments, 
if  once  we  accept  the  principle  with  which  he  starts,  that  he 
was  bound  to  carry  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws  in  that 
session  of  Parliament.  But,  as  Peel  very  truly  says,  it  would 
have  been  ruinous  to  the  country  to  keep  such  a  great 
financial  revolution  hanging  over  the  heads  of  the  people 
for  session  after  session,  while  reluctant  Tories  were  yielding 
slowly  to  conversion.  What  alternative  course  was  left  to 
him  to  adopt  ?  It  was  clear  that,  as  the  conditions  were,  he 
was  the  only  man  who  could  play  the  game  and  win  the 
victory.  Lord  John  Russell  did  not  see  his  way  to  make 
the  attempt ;  and  no  one  could  question  Russell's  courage 
or  patriotism.  Lord  Stanley  did  not  see  his  way  to  form  a 
Ministry  which  should  satisfy  the  Protectionists;  and  certainly 
no  one  ever  doubted  Lord  Stanley's  courage  or  his  zeal 
for  Protection.  What,  then,  did  the  Protectionist  Tories 
complain  of?  That  they  were  not  consulted  ;  that  the 
measure  was  sprung  upon  them.  Nothing  is  more  difficult 
than  to  lay  down  any  precise  rule  with  regard  to  the  duty  of 
a  Minister  of  State  as  regards  consultation  with  the  members 
of  his  party  generally.  It  is  every  day  growing  more  and  more 
necessary  that  such  consultations  should  be  held  as  often  as 
possible,  and  that  the  whole  party  should  be  taken  as  much 
as  possible  into  the  confidence  of  the  leaders.  So  much 
is  this  necessity  growing,  that  it  will  probably  make  itself 


1 66  SIR    ROBERT   PEEL 

a  serious  embarrassment  to  the  leaders  of  parties  in  the 
future.  The  electors  are  ever  so  much  more  numerous 
than  they  were ;  the  constituencies  are  1  letter  educated 
in  politics,  and  more  self-reliant  :  they  watch  with  close 
scrutiny  every  movement  of  their  representatives  ;  they  are 
no  longer  content  to  let  a  representative^do  the  best  he  can 
for  their  interests,  and  ask  no  questions,  trusting  absolutely 
to  his  guidance  ;  they  would  no  longer  be  content  with 
his  assurance  that  he  had  followed  his  leader  without 
knowing  whither  his  leader  proposed  to  go.  Therefore, 
if  the  constituencies  expect  more  from  their  representa- 
tive, the  representative,  for  his  part,  must  ask  more  from 
his  leader.  It  is  easy  to  foresee  that  this  must  render 
the  position  of  a  leader  more  difficult  in  certain  emer- 
gencies as  time  goes  on.  For  there  must  always  be 
seasons  of  crisis,  when  it  becomes  absolutely  necessary  for 
a  statesman  in  office  to  prepare  for  a  policy  which  it  is 
absolutely  necessary  to  keep  from  premature  publicity.  Take, 
for  instance,  some  momentous  question  in  foreign  affairs. 
England  is  engaged  in  controversy  with  some  great  foreign 
power.  The  controversy  thus  far  has  been  diplomatic  and 
highly  courteous  on  both  sides,  and  everything  appears  to 
be  going  smoothly.  But  the  English  statesman  has  made 
up  his  mind  that  England's  interests  require  that  certain 
claims  shall  be  yielded  to  her.  He  must  face  the  consider- 
ation of  what  is  to  be  done  if  these  claims  are  not  yielded. 
Shall  he  have  to  make  war  ?  Would  anybody  say  that  he 
ought  to  call  a  meeting  of  his  party,  and  put  the  question 
to  them  for  their  decision  ?  Would  anybody  argue  that 
he  ought  to  accept  their  decision  ?  Would  it  be  humanly 
possible  to  keep  such  a  consultation  and  its  purpose  secret  ? 
And  might  not  the  news  of  such  a  consultation  getting 


THE    LAST   CHAPTER  1 67 

abroad  be  the  very  means  of  enabling  the  enemy  to 
strengthen  his  position  in  time,  and  bid  defiance  to  Eng- 
land's claims  ? 

I  feel  the  greatest  sympathy  with  the  desire  of  a  political 
party  to  be  taken  into  the  confidence  of  their  leaders.     It 
is  trying  to  be  committed  to  some  line  of  action  on  which 
one  has  never  been  consulted.     But  I  do  not  see  how  a 
condition   of  things   ever   can   arise  which  will   enable   a 
Minister  to  communicate  with  his  party  at  every  emergency. 
There  must   be   times   when   a   battle   has   to   be   fought 
without  a  council-of-war.     The  question  to  be  considered 
in   this  instance  is,  whether  the  repeal  of  the   protective 
tariff  was  an  emergency  of  that  kind.     I  think  it  clearly 
was.      Peel  could  not  have  converted  his  party  in   time, 
if,  indeed,  he  could  ever  have  converted  them,  as  a  party, 
at  all.     The  effort  to  get  up  a  counter-revolution,  a  restora- 
tion of  Protection,  lasted  for  years  after  the  passing  of  the 
measures  introduced  by  Peel.     Disraeli  was  the  fiercest  in 
denouncing  Peel,  on  the  ground  that  he  had  betrayed  his 
party.      Disraeli,  long  after,   boasted  that  he  himself  had 
educated  his  party  on  the  subject  of  Parliamentary  reform. 
But  he  certainly  did  not  consult  his  party  as  to  the  policy 
by  which  he  allowed  a  very  valueless  scheme  of  so-called 
reform    to    be   converted   into   a   measure   of    household 
suffrage  for  cities  and  boroughs.      The   resolutions  which 
he  proposed  to  bring  in  at  the  opening  of  the  session  of 
1867,  and  which  he  afterwards  withdrew,   laid   down   the 
very  principles  of  the  policy  to  which  he  invited  the  solemn 
sanction  of  the  House  of  Commons.     But  the  policy  he 
ultimately  carried  out  was  based  on  entirely  different,  and 
positively  antagonistic,  principles.     He  did  not  consult  his 
party  on   each  change  of  front.      He  was   himself  being 


l68  SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 

driven  along — being  educated,  if  that  phrase  seems  better — 
and  he  had  no  time  to  stop  on  the  way  for  the  purpose  of 
educating  any  one  else.  His  people  had  to  follow  him,  and 
that  was  all. 

Therefore,  I  feel  convinced  that  all  impartial  persons 
will  give  Peel  the  credit  of  having  decided  rightly  at  a  great 
crisis.  There  was  much  bitterness  of  feeling  at  the  time, 
even  among  men  who  did  not  belong  to  Peel's  party,  and 
could  not  complain  that  they  had  been  betrayed.  Lord 
Melbourne,  in  his  usual  rough  way,  declared  that  Peel  had 
done  '  a  damned  dishonest  thing.'  That  sort  of  feeling  soon 
wore  away,  and  all  men  owned  that  Peel  had  acted  in  '  a 
general  honest  thought  and  common  good  to  all.'  And  he 
had  acted  wisely — and  he  had  carried  Free  Trade.  It  is 
characteristic  of  him  that  in  the  very  closing  agony  of  the 
Coercion  Bill  crisis  he  found  time  to  listen  to  the  appeals, 
and  send  money  to  the  help,  of  the  unfortunate  painter, 
Haydon. 

Peel  never  was  in  office  again.  He  bore  his  part  in  the 
great  debate  on  Don  Pacifico  and  his  trumpery  claims  in 
June,  1850.  The  debate  was  made  memorable  by  Lord 
Palmerston's  speech,  by  the  sudden  leap  into  fame  of  the 
late  Sir  Alexander  Cockburn,  and  by  the  melancholy  fact  that, 
during  that  debate,  the  House  of  Commons  listened  for  the 
last  time  to  the  voice  of  Sir  Robert  Peel.  Peel  spoke  firmly, 
strongly,  eloquently  in  condemnation  of  the  policy  of  Lord 
Palmerston.  But  he  paid  a  warm  and  characteristic  tribute 
to  the  marvellous  skill  and  power  displayed  in  Palmerston's 
speech — a  speech  which  first  told  the  House  of  Commons  that 
it  had  in  Palmerston  a  Parliamentary  debater  of  the  highest 
order.  '  We  are  all  proud  of  him,'  Peel  exclaimed.  The 
debate  closed  on  the  morning  of  Saturday,  June  29.    It  was 


THE   LAST   CHAPTER  1 69 

nearly  four  o'clock  when  the  House  divided,  and  it  was  found 
that  the  policy  of  Palmerston  in  Greece  had  been  sanctioned 
— or,  perhaps,  it  would  be  more  proper  to  say  condoned — 
by  a  majority  of  46.  The  sun  was  streaming  into  the 
corridors  when  Peel  left  the  House  of  Commons — for  ever. 
He  went  home,  but  had  not  much  time  for  sleep.  There 
was  an  important  meeting  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Great 
Industrial  Exhibition — the  first  Exhibition,  the  famous 
Crystal  Palace  Exhibition — for  twelve  o'clock  that  day. 
The  site  of  the  building  had  to  be  decided  on,  and  Prince 
Albert  and  the  Royal  Commissioners  generally  relied  much 
on  the  influence  of  Peel  to  sustain  them  against  a  certain 
clamorous  objection  raised  to  the  proposed  site  in  Hyde 
Park.  Peel  was  present  at  the  meeting,  and  undertook 
to  assume  the  leadership  in  defending  the  action  of  the 
Commissioners,  if  defence  should  be  necessary,  before 
the  House  of  Commons.  He  returned  home  for  a  short 
time,  and  then  went  out  for  a  ride  in  the  Park.  On 
Constitution  Hill  he  stopped  to  exchange  a  word  or  two 
with  a  friend,  a  young  lady,  who  was  also  on  horse- 
back. Peel's  horse  suddenly  shied,  and  threw  him  off,  and 
Peel  clinging  to  the  bridle  the  horse  slipped,  and  came 
down  on  him.  Such  an  accident  happens  almost  every  day 
without  fatal  result.  It  was  not  so  destined  for  Peel.  The 
horse  came  with  its  knees  on  Peel's  shoulders,  and  the  work 
was  done.  It  was  found  at  once  that  the  injuries  Peel  had 
received  were  past  all  surgery.  For  two  or  three  days  he 
still  lived — or,  rather,  still  lingered  in  life  ;  hovered  about  its 
dark  and  shadowy  places.  He  was  sometimes  conscious, 
sometimes  wholly  delirious  from  mere  pain.  Nearly  all  the 
members  of  his  family  and  some  of  his  closest  friends  and 
political  comrades  were  round  his  dying  bed.    About  eleven 


170  SIR    ROBERT   PEEL 

o'clock  on  the  night  of  July  2  the  release  came,  and  Peel 

was  dead. 

Now  is  the  stately  column  broke  ; 

The  beacon-light  is  quenched  in  smoke, 

to  quote  the  lines  from  Sir  Walter  Scott  which  Mr.  Gladstone 
cited  in  the  House  of  Commons  when  he  spoke  what  may 
be  called  the  funeral  oration  of  his  friend  and  leader.  The 
Duke  of  Wellington  paid  a  tribute  in  the  House  of  Lords 
to  the  memory  of  the  man  he  loved  and  revered — a  tribute 
which,  like  that  paid  by  Pericles  on  one  famous  occasion, 
was  more  eloquent  than  oratory  of  any  order  could  be, 
for  it  broke  down  utterly  in  tears. 

The  nation  mourned  for  Peel.  Parliament  and  the 
country  were  ready  to  pay  any  homage  to  his  memory. 
Lord  John  Russell,  with  the  sanction  of  the  Crown,  offered 
that  the  remains  of  the  great  statesman  should  be  buried  with 
public  honours  in  Westminster  Abbey.  But  Peel  had  set 
out  in  his  will  his  express  desire  that  his  body  should  lie 
with  the  coffins  of  his  father  and  mother  in  the  family  vault 
at  Drayton  Bassett.  All  that  the  country  could  do  was  to 
give  him  a  monument  in  the  Abbey.  A  peerage  was  offered 
to  Lady  Peel,  but,  as  might  have  been  expected,  was 
declined. 

But  for  that  stumbling  horse  Peel  might  yet  have  had  a 
great  career  before  him.  The  best  of  his  life  might  have 
been  to  come.  He  was  younger  by  some  years  when  he 
died  than  Palmerston  when  he  won  his  first  great  triumph 
in  debate — that  triumph  to  the  splendour  of  which  Peel  had 
only  just  borne  a  generous  tribute.  It  seems  likely  for  many 
reasons  that,  if  Peel  had  lived  a  little  longer,  he  would  have 
been  called  once  again  to  preside  over  the  councils  of  his 
Sovereign.     Or  it  is  possible  that  he  might  have  taken  the 


THE    LAST   CHAPTER  171 

noble  [  osition  of  unofficial  adviser  to  the  Sovereign.  In 
either  cas3  he  would  have  rendered  high  service  to  his 
-country.  His  intellectual  power  was  at  its  best  when  he  was 
suddenly  taken  from  life. 

Peel  was,  undoubtedly,  as  Lord  Beaconsfield  has  said, 
a  great  member  of  Parliament ;  but  he  was  surely  very  much 
more  than  that  ;  he  was  a  great  statesman,  a  great  Minister. 
He   must   always    rank   among   the    foremost  of    English 
Ministers.     The  proud  boast  of  Heine  is  that,  if  any  one 
names  the  best  half-dozen  of  German  poets,  his  name  must 
be  brought  in  among  them.    If  we  name  the  best  half-dozen 
of  modern  English  Prime  Ministers,  we  can  hardly  fail  to 
bring   in  the  name  of  Peel.     The  happy  fortunes  of  his 
country  deprived  him   of  any   chance   of  proving  himself 
a  really  great  man.     Never  since  the  time  of  the  younger 
Pitt  has   England  been  tried  by  any  danger  which  threat- 
ened for  one  moment  her  national  position.     Danger  such 
as  that  proves  a  man,  and,  should  he  prevail  over  it,  stamps 
him  as  one  of  Time's  great  men.     Such  a  chance  was  given 
in  our  own  days  to  Count  Cavour,  and  to  Prince  Bismarck  ; 
and  each  man  proved  what  he  was  worth.     England  is  now 
too  great,  and  strong,  and  happy,  to  give  her  statesmen  any 
such  chance.     We  can  only  be  left  to  conjecture  what  they 
might  have  done  if  put  to  it.     Peel's  claim  to  the  highest 
form  and  order  of  statesmanship  is  like  Hamlet's  claim  to 
'  the  soldier's  music  and  the  rights  of  war  ' — the  claim  that 

He  was  likely,  had  he  been  put  on, 
To  have  proved  most  royally. 

To  every  difficulty  by  which  he  was  tried  Peel  proved 
himself  equal  ;  it  was  his  own  proud  and  honest  boast  that 
he  had  never  proposed  anything  which  he  did  not  carry. 


172  SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 

Only  the  royal  opportunity  was  needed  for  him  to  have 
proved  himself  most  royally.  It  is  to  his  eternal  honour 
that  he  himself,  by  the  wisdom  and  the  high  aim  of  his 
policy,  helped  to  consolidate  that  national  prosperity  and 
that  popular  content  whereby  some  of  those  dangers  were 
averted  which  are  the  ordeal  and  the  touchstone  of  the 
supreme  order  of  statesmanship. 


INDEX 


ABB 

Abbott,  M.,  27 

Aberdeen,  Earl  of,  144 

Abolition  of  slave  system,  116 

Act  of  Union,  14,  19,  20 

Albert,  Prince,  134 

Althorp,  Lord,  43,  99,  106,  119-122,  124 

Anglesey,  Lord,  52  ;  and  Catholic  Asso- 
ciation, 53-4,  66,  68  ;  and  Clare  Elec- 
tion, 59-65 

Anti-Corn-Law  Agitation,  135,  138,  140- 
144,  142-161 

Ashburton,  Lord,  39 


Bathurst,  Lord,  73 

Beaconsfield,  Lord.  See  Disraeli,  B. 

Bedchamber  Question,  134 

Bellingham,  and  Spencer  Perceval,  17-18 

Bentinck,  Lord  George,  154,  156,  160 

Bill  of  Annual  Indemnity,  45 

Bill  of  Pains  and  Penalties,  32-3 

Blanketeers,  the,  27-9 

Bolingbroke,  Lord,  1 

Bonaparte,  Napoleon,  12,  16,  26  ;  Rus- 
sell and,  36 

Bright,  John,  at  Manchester,   28  ;  and 

"  the  House  of  Commons,  91  ;  138-140 ; 
and  famine,  143-6  ;  157 

Brougham,  Lord,  16,  33,  34,  39,  42,  55i 
56,  98-9,  102,  106,  117,  131-2 

Buccleuch,  Duke  of,  149,  152 

Bulwer  and  Peel,  94-5 

Burdett,  Sir  F.,  16,  29-30,  34,  42,  55,  57, 
106 

Burke,  Edmund,  15,  85-6,  93,  99 

Buxton,  Mr.,  116 

Byron,  Lord,  Peel  and,  5-6 


Canadian  Rebellion,  133 

Canning,  W.,  11,  13-16;  and  the 
Catholic  claims,  22-3,  25,  27,  31,  39- 
40 ;  and  Queen  Caroline,  33  ;  George 
IV.  and,  41-2  ;  death  of,  43  :  78>  82  : 
and  Peel,  85,  86-7,  105 

Cardwell,  Lord,  49 


DIS 

Caroline,  Queen,  32-3 

Carteret,  Lord,  19 

Cash  payments,  Peel  and,  31 

Cashel,  city  of,  6-7 

Castlereagh,    Lord,    15-16,    18,   25,   31  ; 

ministry  of,  26-9  ;  38  ;  suicide  of,  39 
Catholic  Association,  45-6,  58  ;  Act  for 

suppression  of,  53-4,  78 
Catholic    Emancipation,    13-15,    19-23, 

29,  32,   33.  39.  41-2,  45-8,  50,  55.  65- 

79,   82-6,  S9-92,   96-7,  100,  106,    118, 

i53 
Catholic  Relief  Bill,  70-5 
Cato  Street  Conspiracy,  33,  38 
Charles  X.  of  France,  92 
Chartism,  104,  133 
Chesterfield,  Lord,  Samuel  Johnson  and, 

374  ;.i9    . 
Civil  List,  Sir  H.  Parnell  and,  95-7 
Clare  Election,  O'Connell  and,  58-63 
Clarence,  Duke  of,  68-9,  93 
Cobden,    Richard,   135,  138,  140-2,   146, 

151.  153.  '55,  157,  160 
Cochrane,  Lord,  16,  30,  34 
Cockburn,  Sir  A.,  168 
Coercion  Bill  for  Ireland,  116,  119,  156- 

160,  168 
Congleton,  Lord,  95-6 
Corn  Laws,  90,  135-161  ;  Bill,  162 
Corporation  Act,  44-5 
Croker,  J.  Wilson,  109 
Crystal   Palace    Exhibition,   Peel    and, 

169 
Currency  Bill,  40 
Customs  Bill,  162 


Dalling,  Lord,  '  Sketca  <.f  Sir  R.  Peel,' 
71-2,  94  :  and  Reform  Bill,  101-2 

Derby,  Lord,  106,  118 

Disraeli,  Benjamin,  1-2/  43  ;  and  Sir  R. 
Peel,  io-ii,  87,  154-5,  167-71  ;  and 
O'Connell,  25  ;  92  ;  first  good  speech 
°f.  '53*4  :  '  Life  of  Lord  George  Ben- 
tinck,' 156-7  ;  and  Peel's  last  speech, 
j6i 


174 


SIR    ROBERT    TEEL 


DON 

Don  Pacifico,  108 

Drummond,  Edward,  154 

Dublin  Castle,  Peel  at,  24 

Dudley,  Lord,  57 

Duncannon,  Lord,  99 

Dundonald,    Earl   of  (Lord   Cochrane), 

16 
Dunning,  Mr.  (Lord  Ashburton),  39 
Durham,    Lord,    42,    Q9-100,    106.    117, 

Duties  Bill,  40 


East  Retford,  borough  of,  56 
Eldon,  Lord,  14,  15,  17,  18,    27,    40-3, 

60,  68,  86 
Emmet,  R.,  rebellion  of,  19 
England  in  1809,  13  ;  State  Church  in, 

14-15  ;  riots  in,  27 


Fitzgerald,  Vesey,  57-60,  62 

Fitzwilliam,  Lord,  19 

Foster,  Mr.  Leslie,  56 

Fox,  Mr.,  11,  15;  Russell  and,  36,  71, 

86,  89,  92 
Fox,  W.  J.,  140 

France,  revolution  of  July  in,  92,  93,  95, 
,107 

Franchises,  Peel  and,  104-5 
Free  Trade,  13  ;  Peel  and,  46,  135-6,  142, 

147,  154,  161,  168 


MET 

Hawkesbury,  Lord,  15 

Haydon,  the  painter,  168] 

Heine  and  Peel,  171 

Herbert,  S. ,  126,  144 

Herries,  Mr.,  73 

Horner,  Francis,  16,  30 

House  of  Commons,  Peel   in,   6-12  ;    a 

1809,  15-16  ;  and  Burdett's  motion,  29- 

30  ;  and    Catholic  question,   50  ;  and 

O'Connell,  75 
Howick,  Lord,  751 
Hume,  Joseph,  103,  107 
Huskisson,    Mr.,    15,    31,    40,    44      51 

56-7 


Indemnity  Act,  45 

Inglis,  Sir  Robert,  56,  79 

Ireland,  45,  116  156-160  Church  of, 
117-119,  130;  potato  famine  in,  143-4 

Ireland,  Coercion  Bill,  156-160,  168 

Ireland,  Peel  as  Secretary  to  Lord 
Lieutenant  of,  18-26  ;  Catholic  ques- 
tion in,  64-78  ;  George    IV.  visit   to, 

?2 

Irish  Established  Church,  14-15 


Jamaica  Act,  134 

Johnson,  Samuel,  and  '  defen^v;  pride/ 

3-4 
Jury  Bill,  89 


George  III.,  13  ;  and  the  Catholics,  21  ; 
death  of,   32  ;  and  Catholic  question, 

47 

George  IV.,  32  ;  wife  of,  33  ;  and  Peel, 
46-7  ;  and  Catholic  question,  41,  47, 
65-6,  68-78,  83-5,  death  of,  92-3 

Gibson,  Milner,  140 

Gladstone,  Mr.,  1  ;  and  O'Connell,  20  ; 
and  Sir  R.  Peel,  87  ;  115  ;  Junior  Lord 
of  Treasury,  126  ;  Secretary  to  Colo- 
nies, 152  ;  and  death  of  Sir  R.  Peel, 
170 

Goderich,  Lord,  43,  44,  52 

Goulburn,  Mr.,  73 

Gower,  Lord  F.,  60 

Graham,  Sir  James,  99,  106,  118,  124, 
132,  135,  144 

f  .rumpound,  borough  of,  38 

Grant,  Charles,  56-7 

t. rattan,  22,  29,  33,  58,  86,  89,  11 

Gregory,  Mr.,  53 

Grey,  Lord,  43,  47-8,  70-2,  80,  86,  92, 
94,  98-9,  102,  106,  iii-:2,  118-30, 
125 

Grote,  Mr.,  117-18 

Guizot'and  Peel,  8,  14 


Habeas  Corpus  Act,  27-8 

Hardinge,  Lord,  Peel's  letter  to,  162-3 


Kenyon,  LorJ,  i.| 


Lamb.  Wm.  (Lord  Melbourne),  51  ; 
and  Catholic  Association,  53-7  ;  99, 
106,  120-1,  131,  134,  135  ;  and  Free 
Trade,  140-3  ;  and  Peel,  168 

Lambton,  Mr.  (Lord  Durham),  42 

Lieven,  Princess,  151  " 

Liverpool,  Lord,  14,  15,  17,  18,  23  ;  min« 
istry  of,  26-30,  32  133,  41,  51 

Londonderry,  Marquis  of,  129 

Lopes,  Sir  M.,  83 

Louis  Philippe,  107 

Ludgershall  (Wiltshire),  80-1" 

Lyndhurst,  Lord,  43,  44,  73,  m,  t"'6, 
132 

Lytton's  novel,  '  Paul  Clifford,'  56 


Macaulay,  Lord,  105 
Mackintosh,  Sir  Jas.,  31,  33,  56,  S9-90 
Mahon,  The  O'Gorman,  60 
Maiden  speech  of  R.  Peel,  8-9 
Malt  tax,  repeal  of,  129 
Manchester  '  Blanketeers,'  27-9 
Manchester  and  Free  Trade,  136-8 
Melbourne,  Lord      See  Lamb,  II 'in. 
Metropolitan  Police  Act,  90 
Metternich,  Russell  and,  36 


INDEX 


175 


MOL 

Molesworth's  '  History  of  England,'  109, 

"3>  135 
Moore,  Thos.,  Russell  and,  36 


Navigation  Laws,  40 
Newcastle,  Duke  of,  152 


Oath   of  Supremacy,  George  IV.  and, 

84 
O'Connell,  D.,  and  Sir  R.  Peel,  10,  23- 

25  ;  leader  of  the  Irish  people,  19-23  ; 

and    accession    of   George    IV.,    32  ; 

45-6  ;  and   Clare  election,  58-65  ;  70- 

1  ;  74-6  ;  91-2  ;  99,  103,  105,  116,  ng, 

128,  132,  133,  138,  156 
O'Donoghue,  The,  25 
O'Gorman  Mahon.  The,  60 
Orangemen  in  Ireland,  23 
'  Orator  Hunt,'  103 
Oregon  question,  162 
Oxford  Union,  Gladstone  and,  115 
Oxford  University,  Peel  and,  78-83 


Palmerston,  Lord,  17,  18,  44,  51,  57, 
89,  99,  105,  106,  151,  168-70 

Parliament,  8-9  ;  delegate  of,  83  ;  in 
1834,  127-8 

Parliamentary  Reform,  14,  27-9,  34  ; 
Russell  and,  38;  92-6;  Disraeli  and, 
167-8 

Parnell,  Sir  Henry  (Lord  Congleton), 
22,  95-6 

Parnell,  Sir  John,  58 

Peel,  Sir  Robert,  birth,  2-3  ;  the  history 
of  the  —  family,  3-4;  the  first — ,4-5  ; 
and  Byron,  5-6  ;  enters  the  House  of 
Commons,  6-7,  n-12  ;  maiden  speech 
of,  8-9  ;  characteristics  of,  10-12  ;  and 
Perceval  Administration,  16-18  ;  Chief 
Secretary  to  the  Lord  Lieutenant  of 
Ireland,  18-26  ;  nicknamed  'Orange 
Peel,'  23  ;  and  the  Six  Acts,  30  ;  and 
the  Economists,  30-31  ;  and  Queen 
Caroline,  33  ;  Home  Secretary,  38-40, 
44,  46 ;  resemblance  to  Sir  John  Rus- 
sell, 37;  and  Canning,  40-2;  leader 
of  Opposition,  43  ;  and  Ireland,  46-9  ; 
and  the  Catholic  question,  50-2  ;  and 
Irish  question,  53-63  ;  and  Catholic 
Emancipation,  64-79,  83-5,  96  ;  and 
Oxford  University,  78-83:  and  Can- 
ning, 86-7  ;  memoir  of  -  in  1832,  88; 
and  the  Criminal  Code,  89-91  ;  death 
of — father,  94;  and  Parliamentary 
reform,  96-115;  126,  155;  and  Revo- 
lution in  France,  107 ;  leader  of 
Opposition,  115;  and  abolition  of 
slavery,  116  :  and  Irish  State  Church, 
118  ;  and  William  IV.,  121-4  \  ministry 
of,  124-30,  132-4  ;  and  Corn  Laws; 
135,      139-44,      146  61  ;      and      Irish 


UTRE 

famine,  145  ;  humorous  side  of  —  s 
character,  147-8  ;  and  Queen  Victoria, 
149-51  ;  financial  policy  of,  154-6 ; 
and  Disraeli,  153-5  >  fall  of,  156- 
160  ;  and  Ireland,  156-60 ;  letter  to 
Lord  Hardinge,  162-3 '.  and  Com 
Laws,  163-6 ;  sudden  death  of,  169- 
170  ;  conclusion,  171-2.  See  also 
Speeches,  &c. 

Peel,  Sir  Lawrence,  '  Life  and  Character 
of  Sir  R.  Peel,'  2-3,  79-81,  139 

Peele  Fold  (estate),  3 

Perceval,  Spencer,  15-18 

Peterloo  Massacre,  28-9,  30,  138 

Pitt,  Wm.  the  younger,  1,  11  ;  and  Lord 
Sidmouth,  18  ;  and  Catholic  Emanci- 
pation, 21,  92,  99 

Plunket,  Lord,  33,  86,  89,  106 

Portland,  Duke  of,  15 

Potato  famine  in  Ireland,  143-4 

Praed,  W.  M.,  126 

Pride,  Samuel  Johnson  and,  3-4 

Protection,  136-7,  148,  154 


Reform  Bill,  100-15,  "7-i8,  126-8; 
riots,  137 

Ricardo,  David,  31 

Richmond,  Duke  of,  118 

Ripon,  Earl  of,  118 

Rome,  Peel's  journey  from,  121-3 

Romilly,  Sir  Samuel,  16,  89 

Russell,  Lord  J.,  34  ;  early  career  of,  35- 
39  ;  42-5,  92  ;  and  Reform  Bill,  99-106, 
109-12,  124  ;  127-30,  132,  140-42  ;  and 
Corn  Laws,  145-53  ',  l64~5  ',  and  Peel, 
170 


Sheil,  R.  L.,  45 

Sheridan,    16 ;    and     Lord     Sidmouth, 

18 
Sidmouth,  Lord,  18,  38 
Six  Acts,  the,  29-30 
Smith,  Sydney,  and  S.  Perceval,  18 
Speeches :  maiden,  8-9  ;  on  Wellington, 

12  ;    on   Catholic   Emancipation,   85  ; 

on     Reform     Bill,     103-5  ;    reply    to 

Speech   from   the   Throne,  1846,  152 ; 

closing,  161 
Spencer,  Earl.     See  Lord  Alt 'horp 
Stanhope,  Lord,  49 
Stanley,  Lord,  117-19,   124-5,  132.  i35i 

144,  146,  149,  152,  164,  165 
Stanley,  Mr.  (Lord  Derby),  106 
Sugar  Duties,  139 


Tu  1  EYR  \ni>,  Russell  and,  36 
Tamworth,  115,  126 
I        and  Corporation  Acts,  44-5 
Thackeray  and  Ceorge  [V.,  93 
Tierney,  George,  16,  31 
Treaty  of  Amiens  21 


176 


SIR   ROBERT   PEEL 


VAN 
Vansittakt,  Nicholas  (Lord  Bexley), 

31    . 
Victoria,  Queen,  133-4  I  and  Peelj  149- 

.151 
Vienna  Congress,  26 
Villiers,  Mr.  Charles,  138,  140,  142 


Walcheren  Expedition,  13,  17 

Walpole,  Sir  Robert,  1-2 

Ward,  Mr.,  1 16-19 

Webster's  '  Duchess  of  Main,'  77 

Wellesley,  Sir  A.,   17,  35-6,   52-3.     See 

also  Duke  of  Wellington 
Wellington,  Duke  of,  Peel  and,  12  ;  35-6, 

41-4,   46-8,   51,    56-7;   and    Catholic 


yoR 

question,  65-73,  76-8,  84-5  ;  and  Re- 
form, 91-7  ;  and  George  IV.,  93,  100; 
and  Reform  Bill,  110-16;  121,  125-7; 
and  Victoria's  accession,  133-4;  and 
Corn  Laws,  144,  148,  156-157,  160 ; 
and  death  of  Sir  R.  Peel,  170 

Westbury,  Peel  and,  79,  83 

West  Indian  Colonies  and  slavery,  116 

Wetherell,  Sir  Charles,  56,  109 

Whitbread,  Samuel,  16 

William  IV.,  93-5,  98-9,  102;  and  Re- 
form Bill,  106,  1 10-14  ;  119-20;  and 
Peel,  121-4,    132;  death  of,  133 


York,  Duke  of,  13 


PRINTED    BY 

SPOTTISWOODE    AND   CO.,    NEW-STREET    SQUARE 

LONDON 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


Series  9482 


ut  bUU  I  HtRN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA      000  232  527    2 


3  1205  00374 


22y 


BOOKSELLER" 

HARTFORD  coh 


*™«p;        "   mm 
mom- 

'TOW1 


WM' 











